IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-03737234.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intervention for Cryptocurrency Emissions: A China Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Fan

    (UCL - University College of London [London])

  • Elliot Gyllensvärd

    (UCL - University College of London [London])

  • Erich Farkas

    (UCL - University College of London [London])

  • Julian Schutzner

    (UCL - University College of London [London])

Abstract

This paper seeks to analyse the environmental effects of China's recent regulatory steps taken against cryptocurrencies and compare them with two policy alternatives. To evaluate the environmental impact, two baseline scenarios are used-a ban scenario and a no-ban scenario-which are then employed to compare China's intervention with two alternative policies; an emissions trading system or carbon taxes. It is estimated that China's decision to ban cryptocurrencies will result in a 25.7% reduction in CO2 emissions from the global Bitcoin network between mid-2021 and 2030. In comparison, under a hypothetical emission trading system (ETS) and carbon tax intervention the most stringent scenario is estimated to reduce global Bitcoin CO2 emissions by 2.9% and 8.5% between mid-2021 and 2030, respectively. Furthermore, this paper shows that the ETS and carbon tax are both restricted in their absolute ability to reduce CO2 emissions due to the difficulties associated with the practical implementation of such policies. This provides evidence for why, in terms of an environmental perspective, a cryptocurrency ban is the most effective policy in reducing the Bitcoin blockchain network's CO2 emissions. However, the paper also shows that the transition to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains may create an environment in which there is less of an argument for active government intervention in the cryptocurrency markets due to the protocol's high energy efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Fan & Elliot Gyllensvärd & Erich Farkas & Julian Schutzner, 2022. "Intervention for Cryptocurrency Emissions: A China Case Study," Working Papers hal-03737234, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03737234
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03737234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03737234/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petrick, Sebastian & Wagner, Ulrich J., 2014. "The impact of carbon trading on industry: Evidence from German manufacturing firms," Kiel Working Papers 1912, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Rakhmindyarto, Rakhmindyarto & Setyawan, Dhani, 2020. "Understanding the political challenges of introducing a carbon tax in Indonesia," MPRA Paper 111586, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Aug 2020.
    3. Adam Hayes, 2015. "A Cost of Production Model for Bitcoin," Working Papers 1505, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.
    4. Shangrong Jiang & Yuze Li & Quanying Lu & Yongmiao Hong & Dabo Guan & Yu Xiong & Shouyang Wang, 2021. "Policy assessments for the carbon emission flows and sustainability of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Luis Náñez Alonso & Javier Jorge-Vázquez & Miguel Ángel Echarte Fernández & Ricardo Francisco Reier Forradellas, 2021. "Cryptocurrency Mining from an Economic and Environmental Perspective. Analysis of the Most and Least Sustainable Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    2. White, Reilly & Marinakis, Yorgos & Islam, Nazrul & Walsh, Steven, 2020. "Is Bitcoin a currency, a technology-based product, or something else?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Kube, Roland & von Graevenitz, Kathrine & Löschel, Andreas & Massier, Philipp, 2019. "Do voluntary environmental programs reduce emissions? EMAS in the German manufacturing sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    4. Yin, Sihua & Yang, Haidong & Xu, Kangkang & Zhu, Chengjiu & Zhang, Shaqing & Liu, Guosheng, 2022. "Dynamic real–time abnormal energy consumption detection and energy efficiency optimization analysis considering uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    5. Löschel, Andreas & Lutz, Benjamin Johannes & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The impacts of the EU ETS on efficiency and economic performance – An empirical analyses for German manufacturing firms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 71-95.
    6. Marco Lambrecht & Andis Sofianos & Yilong Xu, 2025. "Does Mining Fuel Bubbles? An Experimental Study on Cryptocurrency Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(3), pages 1865-1888, March.
    7. Alexandre Bovet & Carlo Campajola & Jorge F. Lazo & Francesco Mottes & Iacopo Pozzana & Valerio Restocchi & Pietro Saggese & Nicol'o Vallarano & Tiziano Squartini & Claudio J. Tessone, 2018. "Network-based indicators of Bitcoin bubbles," Papers 1805.04460, arXiv.org.
    8. Martinsson, Gustav & Sajtos, László & Strömberg, Per & Thomann, Christian, 2022. "Carbon Pricing and Firm-Level CO2 Abatement: Evidence from a Quarter of a Century-Long Panel," Misum Working Paper Series 2022-10, Stockholm School of Economics, Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets (Misum).
    9. Wu, Xiangling & Ding, Shusheng, 2023. "The impact of the Bitcoin price on carbon neutrality: Evidence from futures markets," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    10. Themann, Michael & Koch, Nicolas, 2021. "Catching up and falling behind: Cross-country evidence on the impact of the EU ETS on firm productivity," Ruhr Economic Papers 904, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Bouri, Elie & Gupta, Rangan & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Roubaud, David, 2017. "Does Bitcoin hedge global uncertainty? Evidence from wavelet-based quantile-in-quantile regressions," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 87-95.
    12. M. Eren Akbiyik & Mert Erkul & Killian Kaempf & Vaiva Vasiliauskaite & Nino Antulov-Fantulin, 2021. "Ask "Who", Not "What": Bitcoin Volatility Forecasting with Twitter Data," Papers 2110.14317, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    13. Christoph J. Borner & Ingo Hoffmann & Jonas Krettek & Lars M. Kurzinger & Tim Schmitz, 2021. "Bitcoin: Like a Satellite or Always Hardcore? A Core-Satellite Identification in the Cryptocurrency Market," Papers 2105.12336, arXiv.org.
    14. Okorie, David Iheke & Lin, Boqiang, 2020. "Crude oil price and cryptocurrencies: Evidence of volatility connectedness and hedging strategy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Nitish Gupta & Ruchir Kaul & Satwik Gupta & Jay Shah, 2021. "Study Of German Manufacturing Firms: Causal Impact Of European Union Emission Trading Scheme On Firm Behaviour And Economic Performance," Papers 2108.07116, arXiv.org.
    16. Simone Lazzini & Zeila Occhipinti & Angela Parenti & Roberto Verona, 2021. "Disentangling economic crisis effects from environmental regulation effects: Implications for sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2332-2353, July.
    17. Lu, Yunguo & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "National mitigation policy and the competitiveness of Chinese firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Riska Dwi, Astuti & Nadia, Fazira, 2018. "The Effect of Cryptocurrency on Exchange Rate of China: Case Study of Bitcoin," MPRA Paper 93052, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Apr 2019.
    19. Radosław Miśkiewicz & Krzysztof Matan & Jakub Karnowski, 2022. "The Role of Crypto Trading in the Economy, Renewable Energy Consumption and Ecological Degradation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, May.
    20. Sung-Hyun Jun & Jee Young Kim & Hyungna Oh, 2021. "Evaluating the impact of the KETS on GHG reduction in the first phase," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(3), pages 613-638, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-03737234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.