Summary
- Focusing on zero-emission consumers like electric vehicles and Bitcoin mining is unscientific.
- The New York Times is working on a story to introduce for the first time “fractional reserve indirect carbon accounting” (FRICA).
- The absurd conclusion of FRICA is that 100% of electricity is from carbon-emitting natural gas.
Unscientific Policies to Reduce Carbon Emissions
Bitcoin mining has zero carbon emissions and policies to reduce carbon emissions should be focused on real carbon emitters like airplanes and coal power plants. Focusing on zero-emission consumers like electric vehicles and Bitcoin mining is unscientific. Electricity producers’ carbon emissions are already accounted for as “Scope 1” direct emissions per the U.S. EPA. The only purpose of double-counting emissions with “Scope 2,” indirect emissions is to expand the power of government bureaucracy. Direct Scope 1 emissions increase carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, “indirect, Scope 2 emissions” are an unscientific fiction.
“Fractional Reserve Indirect Carbon Accounting” (FRICA)
This week, we learned that The New York Times is working on a story to introduce for the first time “fractional reserve indirect carbon accounting” (FRICA). It is expected to rebrand this as “marginal indirect carbon accounting” to make it more palatable. We recently found out the hard way that fiat banks don’t hold all of our money. They only hold a small percentage and lend out the rest, an inflationary and dubious practice known as “fractional reserve banking.” The New York Times’ upcoming FRICA methodology is the equivalent of stress-testing a fractional reserve bank by withdrawing one “marginal” dollar, and then announcing that not only is the bank solvent, but it is also 100% cash reserved. This bad accounting ignores the actual balance sheet assets. The New York Times has never used this method of measuring fictitious “indirect carbon emissions” for any other industry, it will be leveraging it to attack Bitcoin mining.
“Marginal Indirect Carbon Accounting”: Absurd Conclusion
The New York Times’ FRICA assumes that every incremental increase in electricity consumption always increases electricity production from a natural gas power plant. The absurd conclusion of FRICA is that 100% of electricity is from carbon-emitting natural gas, because any single consumer of electricity could turn off and decrease marginal demand. In 2022, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) reported that the Texas grid produced roughly 40% of electricity from zero-carbon nuclear, solar, and wind, and 60% of electricity from carbon-emitting natural gas and coal. The New York Times’ creative accounting will deliberately hide the fact that Texas is a leader in renewable energy. Even if only 1% of electricity was produced by natural gas power plants, FRICA would claim that 100% of electricit
“Fictionary Accounting”: Unscientific Fiction
The only purpose behind double counting these emission with “scope 2” indirect emission’s if expanding government bureaucracy’s powers while ignoring “Scope 1” direct emission which actually increase CO₂ in atmosphere .Newyork times has never used this method before when measuring other industries ,its just trying to target bitcoin miners .It’s pretty clear what their agenda behind introducing fractional reserve indirect accounting or marginal indirect accountings .They want’s you believe all energy come from Natural gas even if its very small percentage .If you look at ERCOT report it shows Texas grid produce 40 % energy from Nuclear ,solar & wind combined while remaining 60 % comes from Natural Gas & Coal .This newyork times agenda sounds pretty ridiculous when we consider how much texas invested into renewable energy projects .In short ,this so called FRICA or MARCA just another unscientific fiction invented by newyork times against bitcoin miners .