So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month.<p>From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article.<p>"Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG <i>nightmare</i>"<p>"This paper looks at the energy consumption of seven proof-of-work-based <i>anarchic</i> (public) blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum." (You know how anarchy is bad right, well we're going to say these are like anarchy, so they're bad too.)<p>"Many Bitcoin promoters <i>conjure</i> a future world...[where Bitcoin is king and leads to renewable energy]" (they're like spellcasters, this future doesn't really exist, they're trying to pretend they will create it out of nothing but they never will!)<p>"Putting aside the continual <i>greenwashing</i> that many advocates are guilty of" (You know how whitewashing is bad? Well so is greenwashing! I'm saying these people do that and that means they're bad!)<p>"The container ship <i>fetish</i> is a <i>slight-of-hand</i>[sic] trick..." (These guys have fetishes and fetishes are bad, also they're using slight-of-hand and tricking you, and tricking people is bad!) Also the writer misspelled 'sleight'.<p>If they wanted to change minds the writer should have used more neutral language in their sentences. You can be persuasive without resorting to this. I'll sit down and read it a bit later, but not feeling like trudging through all this loaded language.