Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiralx | Hacker News Reader

> US Military: 59 M ... Banks: 1040 M tons

I have no idea where you got these numbers from, but the idea that banks produce 17 times as much CO2 as the entire US military - with all of its fossil fuel-burning vehicles - is obviously ridiculous.

View on HN

citations:

USMilitary 59 M Tons 2017: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...

BTC: 37M M tons - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor...

BTC: 130 M tons China - https://cacm.acm.org/news/251829-bitcoin-mining-emissions-in....

Banks: 1040 M tons - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/banks-pro...

It sounds like banks are being credited with the carbon emissions of everything they loan money to? Should the US military be credited with the carbon emissions of everything they either defend or attack?

The article wasn't very clear; I think it means the related footprint of internal operations, such as real estate, employee travel, and the like. At least, if you go by https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guid...

The military is a separate article. A sankey diagram would be less ambiguous: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

So banks actually produce about 1.5M tons of emissions then according to your link.

> So banks actually produce about 1.5M tons of emissions then according to your link.

Wrong; Gigatons.

It said emissions from activities relating to loans are 700x direct emissions, 1.04 Gt / 700 is 1.5 Mt.

What's the total addressable market for disrupting carbon footprint of banks? When every person is their own bank, there is less need for brick-and-mortar real estate, the employees commuting, and the like -- what the EPA calls "Scope 3" effects, as per: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guid....

The above carbon TAM is why I'm pro-crypto, as soon as we move past PoW.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com