eComYachting

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

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]
Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Keogh, J.G. Cryptocurrencies in modern finance: A literature review. Etikonomi 2021, 20, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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]
Pantin, L.P. Financial Inclusion, Cryptocurrency, and Afrofuturism. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 2023, 118, 621–690. [Google Scholar]
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]
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]
Herlihy, M.; Moir, M. Enhancing accountability and trust in distributed ledgers. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.07490. [Google Scholar]
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]
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]
Schueffel, P. DeFi: Decentralized Finance-An Introduction and Overview. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 9, I–XI. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Krause, M.J.; Tolaymat, T. Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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).
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).
Digiconomist. Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. Available online: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validation (accessed on 22 January 2024).
Globalpetrolprices. Electricity Prices. Available online: https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
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]
Makarov, I.; Schoar, A. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi). Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 2022, 2022, 141–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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]
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]
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]
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]
de Vries, A. Bitcoin’s growing water footprint. Cell Rep. Sustain. 2024, 1, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Azar, A.T. System dynamics as a useful technique for complex systems. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2012, 10, 377–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Norway, I. Conversion Guidelines—Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://www.eeagrants.gov.pt/media/2776/conversion-guidelines.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2024).
UC. Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. Available online: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci (accessed on 23 January 2024).
Gallersdörfer, U.; Klaaßen, L.; Stoll, C. Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule 2020, 4, 1843–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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]
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]
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.

Sunday, 10 August 2025

This Fuel is 50% Plastic — And It’s Slipping Through a Loophole in International Waste Law

Full Story: Grist

Author: Joseph Winters

Joe Mabel/Wikimedia Commons

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

Since 2019, the 191 countries that are party to the 1989 Basel Convention on human health and the environment have agreed to classify mixed plastic trash as “hazardous waste.” This designation essentially bans the export of unsorted plastic waste from rich countries to poor countries and requires it to be disclosed in shipments between poor countries. But the rule has a big loophole.

Every year, an unknown but potentially large amount of plastic waste continues to be traded in the form of “refuse-derived fuel,” or RDF, ground-up packaging and industrial plastic waste that gets mixed with scrap wood and paper in order to be burned for energy. Environmental groups say these exports perpetuate “waste colonialism” and jeopardize public health, since burning plastic emits hazardous pollutants and greenhouse gases that warm the planet.

Many advocates would like to see the RDF loophole closed as a first step toward discouraging the development of new RDF facilities worldwide. They were disappointed that, at this spring’s biannual meeting of the Basel Convention—which regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous waste—RDF went largely unaddressed.

“It’s just frustrating to witness all these crazy, profit-protecting negotiators,” said Yuyun Ismawati, co-founder of the Indonesian anti-pollution nonprofit Nexus3. “If we are going to deal with plastic waste through RDF, then… everybody must be willing to learn more about what’s in it.”

RDF is a catch-all term for several different products, sometimes made with special equipment at material recovery facilities—the centres that, in the United States, receive and sort mixed household waste for further processing. ASTM International, an American standard-setting organization, lists several types of RDF depending on what it’s made of and what it’s formed into—coarse particles no larger than a fingernail, for example, or larger briquettes. Some RDF is made by shredding waste into a loose “fluff.”

Although RDF contains roughly 50% paper, cardboard, wood, and other plant material, the rest is plastic, including human-made textiles and synthetic rubber. It’s this plastic content that makes RDF so combustible—after all, plastics are just reconstituted fossil fuels. According to technical guidelines from the Basel Convention secretariat, RDF contains about two-thirds the energy of coal by weight.

One of the main users of RDF is the cement industry, which can burn it alongside traditional fossil fuels to power its energy-intensive kilns. Álvaro Lorenz, global sustainability director for the multinational cement company Votorantim Cimentos, said RDF has gained popularity as cities, states and provinces, and countries struggle to deal with the 353 million tonnes of plastic waste produced each year—91% of which is never recycled. Some of these jurisdictions have implemented policies discouraging trash from being sent to landfills. Instead, it gets sent to cement kilns like his.

“Governments are promoting actions to reduce the amount of materials being sent to landfills, and we are one solution,” he said.

Lorenz said RDF makes his company more sustainable by contributing to a “circular economy.” In theory, using RDF instead of coal or natural gas reduces emissions and advances companies’ environmental targets. According to David Araujo, North America engineered fuels program manager for the waste management and utility company Veolia, RDF produced by his company’s factory in Louisiana, Missouri, allows cement company clients in the Midwest to avoid 1.06 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions with every tonne of RDF burned. The ash produced from burning RDF can also be used as a raw material in cement production, he added, displacing virgin material use.

RDF is also attractive because it is less price-volatile than the fossil fuels that cement production would otherwise depend on. In one analysis of Indonesian RDF production from last year, researchers found that each tonne of RDF can save cement kiln operators about $77 in fuel and electricity costs.

Lorenz said the high temperatures inside cement kilns “completely burn 100%” of any hazardous chemicals that may be contained in RDF’s plastic fraction. But this is contested by environmental advocates who worry about insufficiently regulated toxic air emissions similar to those produced by traditional waste incinerators—especially in poor countries with less robust environmental regulations and enforcement capacity. Dioxins, for example, are released by both cement kilns and other waste incinerators, and are linked to immune and nervous system impairment. Burning plastic can also release heavy metals that are associated with respiratory and neurological disorders. A 2019 systematic review of the health impacts of waste incineration found that people living and working near waste incinerators had higher levels of dioxins, lead, and arsenic in their bodies, and that they often had a higher risk of some types of cancer such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

“Before they convert it into fuel, the chemicals are still locked inside the [plastic] packaging,” said Ismawati. “But once you burn it… you spray out everything.” She said some of her friends living near an RDF facility in Indonesia have gotten cancer, and at least one has died from it.

Lorenz and Araujo both said their companies are subject to, and comply with, applicable environmental regulations in the countries where they operate.

Lee Bell, a science and policy adviser for the International Pollutants Elimination Network—a network of environmental and public health experts and non-profits—also criticized the idea that burning RDF causes fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning traditional fossil fuels. He said this notion fails to consider the “petrochemical origin” of plastic waste: Plastics cause greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of their life cycle, and, as a strategy for dealing with plastic waste, research suggests incineration releases more climate pollution than other waste management strategies. In a landfill, where plastic lasts hundreds of years with little degradation, the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law has estimated greenhouse gas emissions at about 132 pounds per tonne. That rises to about 1,980 pounds of emissions per tonne when plastic is incinerated.

Bell said he’s concerned about the apparent growth of the RDF industry worldwide, though there is little reliable data about how much of the stuff is produced and traded between countries each year. Part of the problem is the “harmonized system” of export codes administrated by the World Customs Organization, which represents more than 170 customs bodies around the world. The organization doesn’t have a specific code for RDF and instead lumps it with any of several other categories —”household waste,” for example—when it’s traded internationally. Only the United Kingdom seems to provide transparent reporting of its RDF exports. In the first three months of 2025 it reported sending about 440,000 tonnes abroad, most of which was received by Scandinavian countries.

Nearly all of the world’s largest cement companies already use RDF in at least some of their facilities. According to one market research firm, the market for RDF was worth about US$5 billion in 2023, and it’s expected to grow to $10.2 billion by 2032. Other firms have forecast a bright outlook for the RDF industry in the Middle East and Africa, and one analysis from last year said that Asia is “realizing tremendous potential as a growth market for RDF” as governments seek new ways to manage their waste. Within the past year, new plans to use RDF in cement kilns have been announced in Peshawar, Pakistan; Hoa Binh, Vietnam; Adana, Turkey; and across Nigeria, just to name a few places.

Araujo, with Veolia, said his company’s RDF program “has grown exponentially” over the past several years, “and we recently invested millions of dollars to upgrade equipment to keep pace with demand.” A separate spokesperson said Veolia does not send RDF across international borders, and a spokesperson for Votorantim Cimentos said the company always sources RDF locally.

Dorothy Otieno, a program officer at the Nairobi-based Centre for Environment Justice and Development, said investment in RDF infrastructure could create a perverse incentive for the world to create more plastic—and for developing countries to import it—just to ensure that facility operators earn a return on their investment. “Will this create an avenue for the importation of RDFs and other fossil fuel-based plastics?” she asked. “These are the kinds of questions that we are going to need to ask ourselves.”

At this year’s Basel Convention conference in May and June, the International Pollutants Elimination Network called for negotiators to put RDF into the same regulatory bucket as other forms of mixed plastic—potentially by classifying it as hazardous waste. Doing so would prohibit rich countries from exporting RDF to poor ones, and make its trade between developing countries contingent on the receiving country giving “prior informed consent.”

Negotiators fell short of that vision. Instead, they requested that stakeholders—such as RDF companies and environmental groups—submit plastic waste-related comments to the secretariat of the Basel Convention, for discussion at a working group meeting next year. Bell described this as “kicking the cans down the road.”

“This is disappointing,” he added. “We appear to be on the brink of an explosion in the trade of RDF.”

The next Basel Convention meeting isn’t until 2027. But in the meantime, countries are free to create their own legislation restricting the export of RDF. Australia did this in 2022 when, following pressure from environmental groups, it amended its rules for plastic waste exports. The country now requires companies to obtain a hazardous waste permit in order to send a type of RDF called “process engineered fuel” abroad. Although RDF exports to rich countries like Japan continue, the new requirements effectively ended the legal export of RDF from Australia to poorer countries in Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, Ismawati said countries need to focus on reducing plastic production to levels that can be managed domestically—without any type of incineration. “Every country needs to treat waste in their own country,” Ismawati said. “Do not export it under the label of a ‘circular economy.’”

Wednesday, 6 August 2025

RG Richardson Interactive Markets eBook by R.G. Richardson - EPUB | Rakuten Kobo

RG Richardson Interactive Markets eBook by R.G. Richardson - EPUB | Rakuten Kobo United States

RG Richardson Interactive Markets - Chinese, English and German
R.G. Richardson City Guides. Interactive City Guides, Job Search, Interactive Notes, Shopping and Real Estate Guides.
This guide is all about 11,900 preset searches including 8 search engines! You can now avoid spelling mistakes and language difficulties making this guide simple enough for everybody to use.
These guides have extensive hotel and restaurant searches; not to mention real estate, shopping, job and employment opportunities available in the guides. Sit in the coffee shop and start searching away on their WiFi and start using our interactive city search guides and brochures with 8 search engines including one Chinese!
For PC, Mac, Pad, or iPhone or mobile phone enabled search tool with multi-search engine capability built right in.
This guide searches for food, hotels, real estate, historical sites, sports, concerts, even public toilets and water closets and everything that’s fun to do; with travel planning, maps and transportation. Good for tourists, travellers, vacationers, people who have just moved to town, and even long term residents who want to stay on top of what’s new and current in their area.
New Real Estate, Shopping and Job Employment Series.
New Interactive Notes for Economics, Financial, Markets, Money and Banking.

Sunday, 3 August 2025

Sailors urged to report collisions with whales and other marine life - Practical Boat Owner

Laura Hodgetts July 15, 2025 0 shares The sailing community is being urged to participate in an anonymous global survey to document collisions at sea between sailing boats and whales or other marine life. Dolphins swimming beside sailboat © Amory Ross/11th Hour Racing Credit: © Amory Ross/11th Hour Racing TAGS: Unlike the shipping sector, there is no requirement for systematic reporting for strikes at sea within the sailing world, so interactions with orcas, whales and other marine life often only appear in the news cycle when they impact a boat’s sporting performance. Therefore, according to the latest data from the marine strike log maintained by the Marine Mammal Advisory Group (MMAG), collated from sources such as the International Whale Commission, and media reports, more than 50% of all collisions reported result in damage to the vessel and/or its crew, as well as possible injury or death to marine life. Crewmember of the 11th hour racing team crew watching dolphins swimming beside sailboat © Amory Ross/11th Hour Racing Whale collision hotspots In 2008, Ritter published the first comprehensive paper on collisions between sailing vessels and marine life. The MMAG is seeking to build on this data to reflect the true scale of collisions, to create a ‘global strike log’ to identify collision hotspots and ‘reduce the risk together’. Building a global strike log database is “key to understanding where the hot spots are that need to be avoided”. Founded in 2022, the MMAG is a coalition of stakeholders, which collaborates across the marine industry to advance technical innovations, improve risk assessments, encourage live reporting and citizen science, build education and outreach initiatives. Dolphins swimming beside sailboat © Amory Ross/11th Hour Racing Damian Foxall, professional offshore sailor, co-founder and coordinator of the MMAG, said: “We’d like to thank in advance everyone who takes the time to complete this survey. “Seafarers are the eyes and ears of the scientific community, by sharing our observations we build a better understanding of our impact on ocean life and can use this knowledge to inform better practices as we shift our role from being ocean users to ocean stewards.” The MMAG is requesting all sailors who have experienced a whale collision or strike at sea with other marine life to report their experience via the survey link. And for everyone to share this survey with sailing friends, crews and clubs: mmag.world/marine-strike-log-survey PBO collision avoidance software gear test Collision avoidance software Ben Meakins puts Raymarine’s new Lighthouse AIS update through its paces in Southampton Water uk-cetaceans-Alamy_T6X10H_357054212_618690081 UK cetaceans: How to spot and identify whales and dolphins from your boat One spring day when I was a teenager, we were sailing across Poole Bay as we had many times before.… Oceanis 393 sinks off Portugal after orcas pulled off the rudder. Credit: Augustin Drion ‘Orcas are playing with the yachts’ – experts’ theories after sinking Marine biologists say evidence suggests that orca interactions with yachts are ‘playful’ rather than aggressive, but at risk of becoming…

Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Socialism + Corruption

Here is another thing that doesn’t seem to matter: Democrats are freaked out because their nominee for mayor in New York City wants to run a pilot program with five municipal-owned grocery stores, which is “socialism” or something.

Meanwhile, last week the U.S. government became the largest shareholder in the mining company MP Materials. Which is, you know, kind of like socialism?

Now maybe in the case of rare-earth materials this is a wise move. I’m open to that idea. If you wanted to make the case, you’d say something like:

The rare-earth magnets that MP Materials mines are a vital strategic resource for America and the U.S. government had to ensure some measure of control over the supply. Buying a $400 million stake in the company achieves that goal while still keeping the operational aspects of in private hands.

Maybe that’s true? I want the government to nationalize SpaceX, so I’m not opposed to the Pentagon buying MP Materials in principle. But the level of corruption here seems kind of nuts.

Have a look at the MP Materials stock price over the last six months:

On May 27, MP began a sudden climb. After months of sitting around $25 a share, it moved consistently upward for a month, to almost $40. On June 20 a selloff started and the share price lost a quarter of its value over three weeks. The government announced its purchase on the morning of July 10 and MP went to the moon.

Any of this look to you like someone knew the score?

But that’s just the first layer of corruption.

Get 30 day free trial

This morning, Apple announced that it would also ~~contribute~~ invest $500 million in MP stock.

That’s right: Apple, which is currently negotiating with Trump on the 25 percent tariffs the president wants to put on iPhones made in China, decided to do the government a solid and throw some cash behind Uncle Sam’s MP position, thus driving the price higher and forming a shareholder bloc that will, along with the government, be enough to control MP.

And since Apple’s business now depends on what the U.S. government allows it to do, I suspect Apple’s share will be a pure proxy for whatever the Trump administration’s wishes are.

Essentially, the government spent $400 million, but now controls $900 million-worth of MP because Apple has agreed to become its junior partner in the venture.

There’s your actual, real-deal socialism.¹

The government invests in a private company—and then uses its gangster approach to force/persuade/entice another private company to amplify its position.

Meaning that the American government now has its hooks into not only MP but Apple, too.

And not only is this naked corruption so routine as to no longer even be worth noticing, but the people who have the vapors about Zohran Mamdani’s five grocery stores are silent as the grave.

It’s not true that nothing matters.

My thesis for some time has been that we live in an unserious country filled with unserious people. If true, then we would expect our fellow citizens not to care about the government semi-nationalizing a private company, making insiders rich, and then coercing the world’s most valuable company into being its stooge—but to be utterly transfixed by the Jeffrey Epstein story.

Good luck, America.