The state of NOLA’s economy, 20 years later

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Today marks 20 years since Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating natural disasters in US history, first made landfall in New Orleans and continued on to batter the surrounding Gulf Coast. The storm killed over 1,400 people and displaced roughly 1 million residents. Hurricane Katrina’s damage to New Orleans was so massive that lawmakers at the time debated whether the city, in a precarious environmental spot to start with, was worth rebuilding. In the end, the federal government spent over $125 billion on recovery efforts to rebuild and reinforce flood infrastructure, making Katrina the country’s costliest storm. Plenty of setbacks In the present day, New Orleans is one of the weakest employment markets in the country. Its three main industries—tourism, shipping, and oil and gas production—have been hemorrhaging jobs. More residents are leaving the city for opportunities elsewhere. The population of New Orleans has declined by 23% since 2000, the fastest loss of residents of any US city of its size. And it gets worse for its Black residents: New Orleans is now the most income-unequal major city in the US. Despite the median household income in the city moving up just 12% from 2000 to 2020, Black families experienced no income growth during that period. Even though some spots primed for tourism have received facelifts, a number of areas for residents, predominantly neighborhoods that used to be home to large middle-class Black populations, were completely wiped out and never rebuilt. In 2005, the response to Hurricane Katrina was so botched that it led to the head of FEMA resigning and local and federal politicians receiving massive criticism. Some experts argue that the city’s and state’s uses of federal funds have been just as mismanaged, with little thought going into how to actually future-proof power grids and flood systems. Looking ahead…storms, supercharged by climate change, are only getting worse, and the $14 billion revamped levee system in the city is not only sinking faster than engineers predicted, but at risk of massive federal and state budget cuts.—MM

Start Disaster as Two Boats Collide and Return Home In The Ocean Race Europe Leg One

Start Disaster as Two Boats Collide and Return Home In The Ocean Race Europe Leg One

Start Disaster as Two Boats Collide and Return Home In The Ocean Race Europe Leg One

Toby Heppell

Toby Heppell August 11, 2025

0

shares

Team Holcim PRB and Allagrande MAPEI Racing were both damaged in the opening miles of The Ocean Race Europe sending both back to the dock

TAGS:

The opening leg of The Ocean Race Europe was rocked by drama within moments of the starting gun as two of the IMOCA 60s  — Team Holcim PRB and Allagrande MAPEI Racing — collided at speed, forcing both boats to suspend racing and return to the dock in Kiel.

The incident occurred just after the fleet set off in big conditions, with strong winds delivering fast-paced action from the gun. While Biotherm and Paprec Arkéa pulled into the early lead, a sudden side-on impact between Holcim PRB to leeward and Allagrande MAPEI to windward brought the two team’s race to a halt before they had even cleared the first mile.

Both teams are now dockside in Kiel, where shore crews are assessing damage and preparing for rapid repairs. Fortunately, all crew members were reported safe following the collision.

Skipper Ambrogio Beccaria of Allagrande MAPEI Racing expressed visible disappointment on the dock: “I’m sad to be back here now,” he said. “The team made a huge effort to be here and we only did one mile of the race. It’s super sad for our competitor also. We are not alone in this story… We are checking the boat. For sure we will not drop out until there is no chance. It doesn’t seem easy, but we will see.”

Team Holcim PRB, skippered by Rosalin Kuiper, also confirmed significant hull damage. “We had to retire from the race because of damage to our hull,” Kuiper said. “It is very disappointing for our entire team, and for Allagrande MAPEI and for The Ocean Race as well. We have to repair this damage and that is what we are going to do.”

Race Director Phil Lawrence confirmed that both boats had suspended racing and returned to port, and noted that Holcim PRB has lodged a formal protest against Allagrande MAPEI Racing. “This matter will be handled by the International Jury at a time to be determined,” he added.

While the two damaged teams regroup, the race pressed on with Biotherm leading the fleet through the Kiel Lighthouse scoring gate, earning the first two points of the race. Paprec Arkéa followed close behind to take one point. Canada Ocean Racing – Be Water Positive impressed with a strong showing in third, ahead of Team Malizia and Team Amaala.

With strong winds forecast and a challenging course ahead — including wind farms, current zones, and the iconic passage under the Great Belt Bridge — this edition of The Ocean Race Europe is already proving to be intense.

Both Holcim PRB and Allagrande MAPEI Racing hope to rejoin the race in time for the next stage, with further updates expected early in the week.

If you enjoyed this….

Yachting World is the world’s leading magazine for bluewater cruisers and offshore sailors. Every month we have inspirational adventures and practical features to help you realise your sailing dreams.

Build your knowledge with a subscription delivered to your door. See our latest offers and save at least 30% off the cover price.

RFK Jr has slashed vaccine research. You need to know how perilous that is for the world | Devi Sridhar | The Guardian

RFK Jr has slashed vaccine research. You need to know how perilous that is for the world | Devi Sridhar | The Guardian 

RFK Jr has slashed vaccine research. You need to know how perilous that is for the world

Devi Sridhar

The avian flu virus is now just one mutation away from easier transmission among humans. Donald Trump’s health chief is a grave risk to world health

• Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

Mon 11 Aug 2025 05.00 EDT

536

You’d be hard-pressed to find many public health experts who have positive things to say about Donald Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States. Alongside his numerous policy failures, one Cornell University study found that he was the biggest source of Covid-19 misinformation. But if there’s one redeeming feature to Trump’s pandemic record, it has to be his leadership on Operation Warp Speed – a massive, government-funded initiative that played a pivotal role in fast-tracking Covid-19 vaccines.

“Operation Warp Speed stands as one of the most remarkable scientific and humanitarian achievements of the past half-century,” the former US surgeon general Jerome Adams said. It directed billions of dollars into vaccine development and manufacturing, particularly into the mRNA platform, which became the backbone of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines.

Vaccines work by preparing the body’s immune system to identify and successfully attack foreign agents entering the body. Traditional vaccines use weakened or inactivated viruses to offer a baby version for the body to fight and learn from. These vaccines are often produced by growing the virus in hen’s eggs, which means production is slow and can take months to scale up. In contrast, the mRNA platform functions like a plug-and-play video game console: you just “plug in” the genetic code of a particular virus or pathogen. The vaccine provides instructions to our bodies to make parts of the virus in our own cells, which then prompts an immune response.

The process of creating and manufacturing these vaccines is much faster and more flexible than their traditional counterparts. This is especially important for a disease such as avian flu, which has an up to 100% mortality rate in chickens. But despite the speed in which they come together, there is still a considerable time-lag before mass rollout to allow for clinical trials to ensure human safety, test for side-effects and figure out optimal dosing. During the Covid pandemic, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were created within weeks of research teams receiving the genetic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from China in January 2020. What took a year was the testing and regulatory approval processes to ensure there was trust in their safety.

Given Trump’s success with Operation Warp Speed, it’s particularly bizarre that Robert F Kennedy Jr, his health and human services secretary, has announced $500m in cuts to the mRNA vaccine investment portfolio. These include cancelling funding for Moderna’s development into a late-stage H5N1 avian flu vaccine. I asked Prof Rebecca Katz, a global health security expert and former US State Department adviser, for her assessment of the damage. She called it: “A self-inflicted wound to a vital organ.”

On its own, RFK Jr’s decision isn’t surprising, considering his longstanding anti-vax advocacy and cult-like following. He has built a whole identity on anti-science rhetoric and he is especially vocal about the supposed dangers of mRNA technology. But being an anti-vaxxer is also a tricky road to navigate: RFK Jr upset his base when, under considerable political pressure, he finally endorsed MMR vaccinations during the Texas measles outbreak.

But putting one personality aside, what do these cuts mean for the health of people living in the US and the wider world? It’s bad news. Take the example of H5N1 avian flu. This virus has shown concerning step-changes including becoming endemic in wild birds, infecting a number of poultry farms, and now has sufficient mutations to enable cow-to-cow (mammal to mammal) transmission in the US among dairy cattle. With its circulation in certain herds of dairy cattle has come a rise in human infections (cow-to-human). The virus is now one mutation away from easier transmission among humans. That’s the nightmare scenario: an influenza pandemic, possibly more lethal than Covid-19.

If a human-to-human transmissible H5N1 strain appears, the existing mRNA infrastructure could be used to rapidly develop a targeted vaccine. Many countries, including the UK, have been stockpiling vaccine components or ramping up surveillance. Under the Biden administration, the US had been among the leaders in this effort. By shelving investment and halting further development, the US is essentially gambling that we won’t need quick medical countermeasures. It’s a dangerous bet. When the next pandemic happens, the cost in human lives could be much higher than we witnessed in 2020.

Can other countries simply pick up the slack with mRNA production? Not easily. After the Covid pandemic led to huge disparities in which places in the world had access to vaccine supply, many countries starting planning for their own vaccine and mRNA hubs. They didn’t want to be dependent on the charity of the US or UK to donate them doses: they wanted to independently respond effectively. On a National Academies project that I was vice-chair of on the global coordination of vaccines for pandemic influenza, we looked closely into regional production, including in Africa. What I learned from experts across the world is that vaccine production, especially mRNA-based vaccines, requires a high degree of technical expertise, quality control and highly specialised supply chains. It will happen in other places, but not quickly enough to shoulder the impact of the US decision.

Unlike foreign aid cuts, where the effect is felt immediately in the shutting down of food programmes or health clinics, cuts to research funding have a slower, deeper impact, especially in terms of expertise and knowledge generation. Research programmes that were working on pandemic preparedness are closing. Postdoctoral researchers aren’t finding jobs, without the necessary soft money to support them. PhD programmes have been frozen or cancelled. Universities, highly dependent on government funding, are scaling back their research activities in health, especially in areas that money is being cut from. Perhaps most devastating of all: smart, ambitious young scientists have fewer opportunities to develop careers in public health research and vaccine development. They’ll look elsewhere – into AI, tech, finance. Where will the expertise come from in the next 15 to 20 years if the career pipeline is being shut down?

RFK Jr may position himself as Making America Healthy Again, but in reality, his policies make the entire world more vulnerable. He may, in fact, be the most dangerous person in the Trump administration – not because he’s loud or erratic, but because he’s steadily eroding the foundation of public health research and infrastructure. This isn’t just bad policy. It’s a generational setback. In that light, RFK Jr stands not merely as a controversial figure but as a serious risk to national and global health security.

• Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

America’s Cup overhauled: Women sailors, battery power, fleet racing and more in new Protocol. Plus hope for Brits?

America’s Cup overhauled: Women sailors, battery power, fleet racing and more in new Protocol. Plus hope for Brits?

America’s Cup overhauled: Women sailors, battery power, fleet racing and more in new Protocol. Plus hope for Brits?

Helen Fretter

Helen Fretter August 12, 2025

0

shares

Finally an agreement has been reached by the Defender and Challenger of Record for the next America's Cup... and it's revolutionary in many ways

TAGS:

The much delayed Protocol for the 38th America’s Cup has – finally – been agreed and signed, and there are some radical changes within it for both the racing and the structure of the America’s Cup. Plus, potentially some promising hints for the British team.

This Protocol is long overdue, and the past few months have seen publicly played out disagreements between ETNZ, headed by Grant Dalton, the Challenger of Record, represented by Ben Ainslie, and the other potential teams (Alinghi, New York Yacht Club, the French, and Italians), that have been vehement and, at times, a bit ugly to watch.

Even until late last week I was still receiving messages from those closely involved suggesting that the 38th America’s Cup could yet become a ‘Deed of Gift’ match – or in other words, that the Protocol could fail, and the Cup go back to a two team match. There have clearly been some emergency summits held among the key players with Ainslie, Dalton, and Bertie Bickett of the Royal Yacht Squadron hinting that it had been a fairly torrid 72 hours.

So today’s news is something of a relief, and positive step, though it’s worth noting that until the final ‘Partnership’ agreement (more on that below) is signed in September, this could yet all become null and void. Such is the way of the America’s Cup…

Cup cyclors replaced with batteries

Some of the most visible changes will be in the crew used to sail the AC75 for the 38th America’s Cup. Teams must sail either their existing AC75 from the 37th Cup, or build one to an existing design.

The boats will race with a crew of five, one of which will be a female sailor. However, the four cyclors are to be replaced with a new battery power system.

There are no ‘surrogate’ boats allowed this time around, such as the LEQ12 designs some teams built in the last cycle, and were heavily used in the design and testing of elements such as power cycles. The addition of batteries also removes the number of athletes on board, and adds a ‘push button’ element, similar to the AC40s in the last Women’s America’s Cup and Youth America’s Cup.

“This isn’t a decision taken lightly regarding the cyclors and the athleticism of sailing these boats and the effort that those guys put in,” Sir Ben Ainslie – the head of Athena Racing, the official Challenger of Record – told Yachting World this morning. “But we had to make some difficult decisions regarding cost caps and moving forward. That’s a tough call.”

“It doesn’t actually change the sailing of the boat,” Grant Dalton added. “I think the key to it is not to just create unlimited power because, really, you might as well carry around a power station. It’s to mimic – and I think this won’t be very hard – the peaks and troughs of the power of an average [AC]75 from the last America’s Cup and produce that.”

Peter Burling – who left Team New Zealand and joined Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli – will be eligible to compete for the Italian team

Nationality and Non-compete agreement

The nationality rule was known to be a huge sticking point in the negotiations for the new Protocol. For AC38 the female sailor and at least two other crew members must be of the same nationality as the yacht club they represent.

The other big shift in this updated Protocol is the removal of a ‘non-compete’ clause which would have banned sailors who competed in one team from competing in another, which was a point known to be a big bone of contention among some teams.

Widely referred to as the ‘Burling clause’ after New Zealand three-times winning helmsman Peter Burling did not re-sign with Emirates Team New Zealand but instead moved to Italian team Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli, a lot of focus has been on whether Burling could sail for the Italians. In this morning’s media call, Grant Dalton confirmed that he now could.

After an announcement earlier this year Naples is now confirmed as the 38th America’s Cup venue.

38th America’s Cup venue

The 38th America’s Cup is still due to be held in Napes, Italy, in 2027. The racing cycle for the 38th Cup will include up to three Preliminary regattas – potentially two as soon as next year in AC40s, before a Preliminary Regatta in AC75s in Naples.

There will also be more racing scheduled, including fleet racing for the AC75s as part of the Challenger Series.

A cost cap of £75million is to be imposed – though Dalton acknowledged that would be tricky to fairly implement for teams such as Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli, who are already up and running, with staff employed.

Entry opens soon, with just a 28 day window, and a €7million entry fee. Ainslie said that they are expecting most of the AC37 teams to enter. “I think we’re looking at five, maybe six teams for this next cycle.

Grant Dalton added: “Whether there is any further – if there is, they’re going to come out of Italy. I think that would be fair to say. So there could be an extra one, not sure yet.”

‘Fundamentally reshaped’ America’s Cup

However, the biggest structural change to the America’s Cup baked into this Protocol is the formation of a new Partnership Agreement, in which all currently involved teams have agreed a new commercial structure for the America’s Cup.

The idea is to give the event – which has historically been largely subject to the whims of its current holder – a firmer timetable. Going forward the Cup should have a two-year cycle giving teams more security when it comes to sourcing sponsors, planning campaigns etc. A new board will make key decisions such as class rule, agreeing venues etc, following an Formula One type model.

There’s no getting away from the fact this is controversial. The America’s Cup is the oldest sporting trophy in the world, and the Deed of Gift is one of its most unique elements. But it has also struggled to maintain momentum between cycles, and often ended up with protracted legal battles to get events off the ground. At one stage, it looked as if the 38th Cup could go the same way.

In this morning’s announcement, Team New Zealand CEO Grant Dalton said: “As the three-time successive winner and Defender of the America’s Cup and along with the RNZYS as current Trustee, we feel the responsibility to continue to drive the growth of the America’s Cup event.

“Although the America’s Cup is the oldest trophy in international sport and the pinnacle of sailing, its Achilles’ heel has always been its lack of continuity, so this transformation now gives all teams collective stewardship, and we are introducing a new executive management team to be headed up by a new independent CEO.

“By negotiating this Protocol and the America’s Cup Partnership with the Challenger of Record, it provides certainty for teams, commercial partners, and event venues to invest for multiple editions. This is the boldest change in 174 years of the Cup, while respecting the Deed of Gift, along with the Challenger of Record we are confident this is the best initiative to grow what is already one of the greatest sporting events in the world.”

New York Yacht Club Commodore Jay Cross said: “As the founding Trustee of the America’s Cup, we are completely supportive of the move to modernise the oldest sporting trophy in the world.”

“This is a seismic moment for the America’s Cup,” said Ainslie. “The partnership agreement fundamentally reshapes the governance and organisation of the event. The teams and yacht clubs share a vision to make the America’s Cup more inclusive, compelling, and financially sustainable. This new model marks a unified commitment to that vision. I am excited for the future of the sport.”

So will this partnership agreement actually go through? There does seem to be – on the surface at least – more agreement on the fundmental principles of this, than on some of the details that were driving the AC38 disputes.

Grant Dalton explained that there is more to it than appears in the Protocol. “You’re not seeing really the key document that actually has been signed – and you’re not going to be able to see it either, which is the term sheet,” he told invited media this morning.

“Which sets out the transitional period and the transitional rules of the defender handing over basically the keys to the city, the Crown jewels,  handing over all that. That is the key document. The rest of [the agreement], I have every confidence [will be signed], because it’s well done.”

Both of the AC75s used on the 2024 America’s Cup are likely to return, although the British boat will be renamed. Photo: America’s Cup

Hope for British America’s Cup team?

For British Cup fans, the signing of the Protocol by the Royal Yacht Squadron as Challenger of Record, represented by Ben Ainslie’s Athena Racing, is obviously a very good sign. Since the loss of sponsorship by Sir Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS, there have been major concerns about the viability of the British America’s Cup Challenge.

While Ainslie did not speak about the funding of his own team, he did drop a few hints that could be interpreted encouragingly. The first being that, while he confirmed that the AC75 hull they used in the 37th America’s Cup to win the Louis Vuitton Cup will race again, it would be under a different name, suggesting a title sponsorship deal may be in place.

“The boat that’s Athena Racing’s boat is not going to be called Britannia,” he said in today’s media call.

While talking about the importance of having female athletes in the America’s Cup, he added: “We have funding in place for our youth and women’s team right now, for the whole programme. I think it just goes to show how much support there is out there across the sailing community to push this agenda.”

There’s lots more to unpick from this morning’s announcement, and we’ll follow up with further details as we have them.

Download a full copy of the new America’s Cup Protocol.

If you enjoyed this….

Yachting World is the world’s leading magazine for bluewater cruisers and offshore sailors. Every month we have inspirational adventures and practical features to help you realise your sailing dreams.

Build your knowledge with a subscription delivered to your door. See our latest offers and save at least 30% off the cover price.

‘This Isn’t a Presidency, It’s a One-Man Circus’: Sachs Tears Into Trump...

Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions

Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis

Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis

by 

Mohamd Laimon

 1,*,

Rula Almadadha

 2 and

Steven Goh

 3

1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, Ma’an 71111, Jordan

2

Department of Accounting, Mutah University, Mutah 61710, Jordan

3

School of Engineering, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia

*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3522; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083522

Submission received: 12 October 2024 / Revised: 10 February 2025 / Accepted: 4 March 2025 / Published: 14 April 2025

Downloadkeyboard_arrow_down 

Browse Figures

 

Versions Notes

Abstract

Cryptocurrencies have gained global recognition, yet their rapid expansion is accompanied by significant environmental concerns due to their energy-intensive operations. This study employs novel system thinking and system dynamics approaches to examine the impact of cryptocurrencies on energy use, water consumption, and carbon emissions. The findings underscore the significant negative environmental impact resulting from cryptocurrency mining. According to our results, in 2023, the water consumption and carbon emissions of cryptocurrencies amounted to 1859 × 106 m3 and 90.6 × 106 tons CO2e (0.25% of global CO2 emissions), respectively, linked to the consumption of 119.7 × 106 MWh of electricity (0.5% of global electricity consumption). To provide context, this volume of water could fulfill the basic drinking water and sanitation needs of a global population that lacks access. Similarly, the electricity consumption equates to supplying a country like Argentina, which has a population of nearly 46 million. Without intervention, these figures are projected to increase sixfold by 2030. We recommend the adoption of renewable energy curtailment for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrency mining. Alternatively, technologies like the Pi network, based on the Stellar Consensus Protocol, offer a sustainable and energy-efficient solution.

Keywords: 

Bitcoin; Proof-of-Work; Stellar Consensus Protocol; Pi network; electricity; water consumption; carbon emissions

1. Introduction

Cryptocurrencies have garnered significant attention, with numerous major corporations and entire nations, such as El Salvador, embracing them as legitimate forms of payment [1]. The adoption of cryptocurrencies represents a paradigm shift in the traditional financial landscape, offering benefits such as decentralized transactions, increased financial inclusion, and reduced transaction costs [2,3,4]. This revolutionary technology facilitates cross-border movement by increasing transaction speed, but its true power lies in empowering individuals in places with no or poor access to traditional banking infrastructure [5,6]. Interest in the underlying blockchain technology of cryptocurrencies has also been sparked across different industries other than payment systems. The transparency and immutability of blockchain allow for greater security and accountability even for fields beyond finance [7]. Blockchain is used in diverse fields like healthcare, supply chain management, and voting systems, as it promises increased transparency, traceability, and efficiency [8,9]. Moreover, the increasing acceptance of cryptocurrencies is reshaping investment strategies. Institutional investors are adding digital assets to their portfolios and viewing them as alternative stores of value. Decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms have also become exemplars of cryptocurrencies, enabling decentralized lending, borrowing, and trading [10].

However, the adoption of cryptocurrencies comes with some challenges. Continued discussions and debates have been spurred by regulatory uncertainties, concerns over illicit activities, and the environmental impact of mining operations [11,12,13]. It is crucial to strike a balance between encouraging innovation, regulatory concerns, and the environmental impact of mining operations for the sake of the healthy growth of cryptocurrencies in the global financial ecosystem. Cryptocurrency mining processes, especially the ones that use Proof-of-Work mechanisms, consume large amounts of energy and water [14]. For example, the average energy consumption for mining Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Monero is around 5, 2, 2, and 4 kWh to generate USD 1 [15]. Bitcoin alone is responsible for 0.5 to 0.6% of global electricity consumption [16]. Therefore, the increasing energy requirements of cryptocurrency mining and their implications have raised concerns about environmental sustainability.

Many studies have looked into worries about cryptocurrencies; however, a fundamental error has been discovered in the energy consumption index, leading to a significant overestimation of electricity use [17]. The primary inaccuracies discovered are the assumptions regarding power pricing and the expected ratio of electricity expenses to total mining income. For example, in a study by the authors of [18], a fixed rate of 5 cents/kWh is assumed for power expenses, which differs from the global average of USD 0.15/kWh [19]. This assumption leads to an overestimation of the electricity consumption of cryptocurrencies [17] and has comprehensively detailed various other flaws in their study, shedding light on the intricacies of these issues. Table 1 provides an overview of how cryptocurrencies affect both the global financial system and the environment. It highlights key research gaps, such as the limited data on overall resource use and the need for sustainable approaches, which are areas this study aims to address, using a unique approach that integrates systems thinking and dynamics to model these impacts in detail. By doing so, it sets the foundation for exploring effective, sustainable strategies to reduce the environmental footprint of cryptocurrency mining.

Table 1. Overview of the financial position and environmental challenges of cryptocurrency.

This paper aims to investigate the comprehensive environmental impacts of cryptocurrencies, addressing not only their energy consumption and carbon emissions but also their water consumption. Through this comprehensive analysis, our objective is to gain deeper insights into the ecological impact of various cryptocurrencies in the market, offering a nuanced understanding of their environmental implications. Exploring the multifaceted dimensions of environmental impact, such as energy use, water consumption, and carbon emissions, is of paramount importance. By considering these critical environmental factors, we aim to contribute to a more holistic evaluation of the sustainability of cryptocurrencies, thus enhancing our ability to propose targeted and effective sustainable strategies.

2. Methods

To achieve the aim of this study, we use both systems thinking and system dynamics methodologies. Systems thinking paints a complete picture of intricate interdependence, whereas system dynamics provides a thorough framework for modeling and studying dynamic systems over time [27]. This methodology carefully examines a system’s interdependence and feedback loops, helping us comprehend how various components interact and influence one another. System dynamics allows for the examination of dynamic links, making it perfect for investigating the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, which have complex and evolving relationships.

Main Data Used in the Model

Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the pivotal parameters and variables that form the backbone of the model. Each parameter and variable play a vital role in shaping the behavior and outcomes of the model, serving as the foundation upon which the analysis is built. For a thorough understanding, including equations and units for all model parameters, Appendix A provides a comprehensive set of details.

Table 2. Key parameters and variables for the model.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. System Dynamics Analysis

The study reveals a significant adverse environmental impact stemming from cryptocurrency mining. Our findings for 2023 indicate that the water consumption and carbon emissions of cryptocurrencies total 1859 × 106 m3 and 90.6 × 106 tons CO2e (0.25% of global CO2 emissions), respectively, linked to the consumption of 119.7 × 106 MWh of electricity (0.5% of global electricity consumption), as illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 3. This highlights a substantial impact, particularly considering that the volume of water could meet the basic drinking water and sanitation needs of a global population that lacks access. Furthermore, the electricity consumption is equivalent to supplying a country the size of Argentina, with a population of nearly 46 million. Without intervention, these figures are projected to increase sixfold by 2030. This is a significant concern as the world aims to decarbonize, presenting a call to action for interventions. This projected escalation underscores the urgent need for implementing intervention strategies to mitigate the growing environmental consequences associated with cryptocurrency mining.

Figure 1. System dynamics model depicting the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies.

Table 3. Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies mining: energy, water, and carbon emissions.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 offer a comparative overview of our study’s findings in relation to other studies. Figure 2 specifically delves into studies focused on investigating Bitcoin’s electricity consumption. For example, ref. [1] reported 101.2 TWh, while refs. [18,29] (representing some of the most cited studies) reported electricity consumption figures of 137.63 TWh and 141.72 TWh, respectively. In contrast, ref. [30] estimated it at 4.3 GW (equivalent to 37.7 TWh). Notably, a noticeable discrepancy exists between the findings of these studies and our current study. We attribute this inconsistency to several factors. Most of these studies rely on an underestimated electricity price assumption, such as the studies by refs. [18,29], where it is assumed to be USD 0.05/KWh, leading to an overestimation of electricity consumption, as depicted in the figure. Additionally, the methodologies employed in other studies ([1,30]) lack clarity, particularly in utilizing market share to estimate electricity consumption. Moreover, certain studies, like ref. [1], employ a carbon density aligned with oil, whereas the majority of power stations globally rely on coal and natural gas. This discrepancy significantly impacts the accuracy and relevance of their findings.

Figure 2. Electricity consumption—comparison of findings with other studies [1,18,22,23].

Figure 3. Comparison of electricity consumption, water consumption, and carbon emissions with findings from another study [1,24].

Unlike other studies, we use realistic assumptions about electricity prices and carbon density, better capturing the current global energy landscape, where coal and natural gas are major power sources. This approach provides a more accurate estimate of cryptocurrency mining’s environmental impact, making our findings especially useful for policymakers and industry leaders looking to tackle these challenges.

Figure 3 presents a comparative analysis with select smaller-scale studies that have explored the collective impact of cryptocurrencies on energy consumption, water consumption, and carbon emissions. In a study by the authors of [1], total electricity consumption, water consumption, and carbon emissions for cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin) were reported as 236.1 × 106 MWh (236.1 TWh), 3668.6 × 106 m3, and 139.1 × 106 tons CO2e, respectively. In contrast, our current study reveals figures of 119.7 × 106 MWh, 1859 × 106 m3, and 90.6 × 106 tons CO2e for the same parameters. We explicated potential reasons for the observed discrepancies in a previous section. Another study, conducted by the authors of [26], exclusively delved into Bitcoin’s water consumption, estimating it to be 2237 × 106 m3.

3.2. Systems Thinking Analysis

In Figure 4, we observe the presence of three balancing loops, which are feedback mechanisms aimed at maintaining equilibrium within a system. Balancing loops counteract changes and stabilize the system. Loop B1 illustrates the inter-relationships among several variables: renewable energy (RE) curtailment utilization, fossil fuel utilization, environmental impact, and the necessity of adopting sustainable measures. This loop suggests that as RE curtailment utilization increases, there is a corresponding decrease in fossil fuel utilization, leading to a reduction in environmental impact. Loop B2 emphasizes the links between cryptocurrency mining, the Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP), fossil fuel use, environmental impact, and implementing sustainable measures. Adopting a more energy-efficient protocol like SCP reduces fossil fuel use and its environmental impact. Loop B3 examines the relationship between fossil fuel use, environmental damage, and implementing sustainable measures. This loop emphasizes the direct impact of fossil fuel use on environmental degradation and the importance of practicing sustainable measures.

Figure 4. Causal loops for cryptocurrency mining sustainability.

These loops shed light on the complex interplay of factors impacting the long-term profitability of cryptocurrency mining operations. This understanding is crucial for establishing effective approaches for decreasing environmental impact and supporting long-term sustainability in the cryptocurrency business.

3.3. Proposed Sustainable Solutions

3.3.1. Renewable Energy Curtailment

In light of the high carbon emissions and energy consumption associated with cryptocurrency mining operations, using RE sources is a promising path for mitigating these environmental implications. As a result, we advocate implementing RE curtailment, which faces economic and environmental issues while also losing valuable energy [31] to channel excess RE output to cryptocurrency mining operations during periods of overgeneration when the grid does not require full capacity. RE curtailment practices enable cryptocurrency mining operations to leverage surplus clean energy, diminishing reliance on non-renewable sources and concurrently reducing carbon emissions. This sustainable approach aligns with the broader global agenda to transition towards greener technologies, addressing environmental concerns within the cryptocurrency industry. Despite the potential of RE curtailment, a challenge arises as many miners prioritize continuous mining for maximum profits. To address this, surplus/wasted energy could be converted into alternative forms, such as hydrogen, allowing for on-demand utilization. Furthermore, our proposed integrated RE-driven hydrogen system for energy independence and self-sufficiency, as suggested in the study by the authors of [32], provides a comprehensive solution to further enhance the environmentally conscious and ecologically responsible ecosystem. For this proposed solution, we consider cost-effectiveness and challenges. As shown in our previous research [31], when there is a surplus of RE, it can be redirected to sustainable applications—for instance, to generate green ammonia, making it viable and cheaper than other times.

3.3.2. Stellar Consensus Protocol

An alternative and highly favored solution to address the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining is the adoption of SCP, exemplified by the Pi network [33]. SCP is gaining recognition as an efficient and environmentally friendly consensus algorithm, particularly in contrast to the energy-intensive Proof-of-Work mechanisms commonly associated with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. SCP ensures decentralization, security, and scalability without requiring significant processing capacity and lowers the energy usage related to cryptocurrency transactions and mining. The Pi network is an example built on SCP that has grown in prominence due to its focus on sustainability, providing an energy-efficient alternative. By utilizing SCP, Pi network users contribute to the network’s security and consensus process while avoiding the environmental costs associated with traditional mining methods. Adopting SCP is a critical step towards promoting a greener and more sustainable future for the cryptocurrency sector, in line with the growing global emphasis on environmentally sensitive technologies.

4. Conclusions

This study’s aim is to investigate the environmental consequences of cryptocurrencies through systems thinking and system dynamics methodologies. The research revealed significant negative environmental implications associated with cryptocurrency mining. In 2023, cryptocurrency consumed 1859 × 106 m3 of water and emitted 90.6 × 106 tons of CO2e, resulting in 119.7 × 106 MWh of electricity consumption.

These findings carry crucial policy implications for the cryptocurrency industry and environmental regulators. The study underscores the urgency for adopting sustainable practices, emphasizing the importance of balancing technological advancements in cryptocurrencies with environmental responsibility. To encourage such practices, we propose the following: First, promote the use of RE for mining with tax breaks, and encourage energy miners and energy providers to work together. The shift to low-energy consensus protocols, like SCP, could be encouraged by diverting research funding to reduce energy intensity. Also bringing in environmental reporting requirements and carbon pricing (for example, carbon taxes) increases accountability. Funding research and development for energy-efficient blockchain technologies could mitigate energy costs and spur further innovation. Making efficient use of excess RE during periods of high energy availability is critical, and establishing carrier water use standards (with efficient cooling requirements) may help with the footprint in areas where water availability is an issue. These targeted efforts give policymakers a framework to advance a sustainable cryptocurrency sector. The move to sustainable mining represents a socio-economic shift that guarantees savings, generates green jobs, enhances the economy, and lowers environmental impact. Subsequent research should focus on other consensus mechanisms, geographic and regulatory variance, and smart grid connectivity. Life cycle assessments and economic models of positive and negative impacts will determine costs versus benefits, while social impact studies will demonstrate effects on local energy access, employment, and public health that can guide equitable growth to advance sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and R.A.; methodology, M.L. and R.A.; software, M.L.; validation, M.L.; formal analysis, M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L. and S.G.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and S.G.; visualization, M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Parameters employed in the system dynamics model.

References

1. Siddik, M.A.B.; Amaya, M.; Marston, L.T. The water and carbon footprint of cryptocurrencies and conventional currencies. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 411, 137268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Keogh, J.G. Cryptocurrencies in modern finance: A literature review. Etikonomi 2021, 20, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Rodima-Taylor, D.; Grimes, W.W. Cryptocurrencies and digital payment rails in networked global governance: Perspectives on inclusion and innovation. In Bitcoin and Beyond; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 109–132. [Google Scholar]
4. Pantin, L.P. Financial Inclusion, Cryptocurrency, and Afrofuturism. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 2023, 118, 621–690. [Google Scholar]
5. Barreto, P.I.B.; Maggia, P.J.A.U.; Acevedo, P.S.I. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain in tourism as a strategy to reduce poverty. Retos 2019, 9, 18. [Google Scholar]
6. Scott, B. How Can Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology Play a Role in Building Social and Solidarity Finance? UNRISD Working Paper; UNRISD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
7. Herlihy, M.; Moir, M. Enhancing accountability and trust in distributed ledgers. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.07490. [Google Scholar]
8. Anusha, R. Blockchain Technology for Supply Chain, Health Care, Intellectual Property Rights, E-voting. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ. (TURCOMAT) 2021, 12, 1873–1878. [Google Scholar]
9. Ahmad, M.S.; Shah, S.M. Moving beyond the crypto-currency success of blockchain: A systematic survey. Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp. 2021, 22, 321–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Schueffel, P. DeFi: Decentralized Finance-An Introduction and Overview. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 9, I–XI. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Cumming, D.J.; Johan, S.; Pant, A. Regulation of the crypto-economy: Managing risks, challenges, and regulatory uncertainty. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2019, 12, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Arsi, S.; Ben Khelifa, S.; Ghabri, Y.; Mzoughi, H. Cryptocurrencies: Key risks and challenges. In Cryptofinance: A New Currency for a New Economy; World Scientific: Singapore, 2022; pp. 121–145. [Google Scholar]
13. Wendl, M.; Doan, M.H.; Sassen, R. The environmental impact of cryptocurrencies using proof of work and proof of stake consensus algorithms: A systematic review. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Islam, M.R.; Rashid, M.M.; Rahman, M.A.; Mohamad, M.H.S.B. A comprehensive analysis of blockchain-based cryptocurrency mining impact on energy consumption. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Krause, M.J.; Tolaymat, T. Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Chohan, U.W. Cryptocurrencies: A Brief Thematic Review. 2022. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024330 (accessed on 1 September 2024).
17. Bevand, M. Serious faults in Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. 2017. Available online: http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci (accessed on 22 January 2024).
18. Digiconomist. Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. Available online: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validation (accessed on 22 January 2024).
19. Globalpetrolprices. Electricity Prices. Available online: https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
20. Tetiana, Z.; Volodymyr, S.; Oleksandr, D.; Vasyl, B.; Tetiana, D. Investment Models on Centralized and Decentralized Cryptocurrency Markets; Scientific Bulletin of National Mining University: Kyiv, Ukraine, 2022. [Google Scholar]
21. Makarov, I.; Schoar, A. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi). Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 2022, 2022, 141–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Arnone, G. The Future of Cryptocurrencies and Digital Currencies. In Navigating the World of Cryptocurrencies: Technology, Economics, Regulations, and Future Trends; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 103–111. [Google Scholar]
23. Tayebi, S.; Amini, H. The flip side of the coin: Exploring the environmental and health impacts of proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Santiago, N.G.; Gonzales, A.L.; Damilig, A.D. Minding Modern Mining: An Analysis of the Energy-Intensiveness of Proof-of-Work Consensus Mechanism and its Violation Against the Right to a Balanced & Healthful Ecology. J. ReAttach Ther. Dev. Divers. 2023, 6, 1250–1276. [Google Scholar]
25. Siddique, I.; Smith, E.; Siddique, A. Assessing the sustainability of bitcoin mining: Comparative review of renewable energy sources. J. Altern. Renew. Energy Sources 2023, 10, 46610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. de Vries, A. Bitcoin’s growing water footprint. Cell Rep. Sustain. 2024, 1, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Azar, A.T. System dynamics as a useful technique for complex systems. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2012, 10, 377–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Norway, I. Conversion Guidelines—Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://www.eeagrants.gov.pt/media/2776/conversion-guidelines.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2024).
29. UC. Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. Available online: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci (accessed on 23 January 2024).
30. Gallersdörfer, U.; Klaaßen, L.; Stoll, C. Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule 2020, 4, 1843–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Laimon, M.; Goh, S. Unlocking potential in renewable energy curtailment for green ammonia production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 71, 964–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Laimon, M.; Yusaf, T. Towards energy freedom: Exploring sustainable solutions for energy independence and self-sufficiency using integrated renewable energy-driven hydrogen system. Renew. Energy 2024, 222, 119948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Network, P. The First Digital Currency You Can Mine on Your Phone. Available online: https://minepi.com/ (accessed on 23 January 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

      

MDPI and ACS Style

Laimon, M.; Almadadha, R.; Goh, S. Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083522

AMA Style

Laimon M, Almadadha R, Goh S. Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083522

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laimon, Mohamd, Rula Almadadha, and Steven Goh. 2025. "Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083522

APA Style

Laimon, M., Almadadha, R., & Goh, S. (2025). Energy Consumption of Crypto Mining: Consequences and Sustainable Solutions Using Systems Thinking and System Dynamics Analysis. Sustainability, 17(8), 3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083522

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.