The EU Parliament had proposed moving the protocol from a proof of work to a proof of quota. The reasons explained are the large amount consumed by mining farms with the inability of green energies to meet all the mining needs of energy.
Which we all know are pure alibis. The real reason is control, something they don't have with Proof-of-Work. If they cared about the environment, and their intentions had a purely humanistic character, they'd have grabbed the entire financial sector, which consumes much more than Proof-of-Work does (and is capable of consuming):
The modern recession and the boom-bust cycle that drives it is entirely a creation of fiat money. Governments intervene in the allocation of capital, randomly starting and stopping a fire hose of credit that whipsaws the real economy and destroys real lives. Just as the cost of a five-second delay in a footrace can be measured in distance lost, the cost of a recession can be measured by the resources it will take to rebuild lost wealth. Bitcoin, by taking purchasing power out of central banks manipulation space, can reduce or even eliminate their ability to cause boom-bust cycles.
Even Bitcoins worst critics allege the distributed network consumes no more than 86 TWh per year, of which perhaps 16 TWh might be Americans, with much of that green energy. It would take between 500 and 1,000 years for Bitcoins energy use to even approach the 2008 crisis alone. With another recession permanently on the way, over and over again. That 500 to 1,000 years worth of energy goes on top of the 8.4% of GDP, the 80,000 bank branches and 470,000 ATMs and those skyscrapers.
These ratios suggest that central banks are vastly more polluting than Bitcoin, indeed more polluting than the worst industrial offender you could imagine. Bitcoin, by implication, is among the most green technologies humanity has ever invented. Indeed, if Bitcoin even slightly reduces central banks ability to cause recessions, it could pay back every watt many times over. For example, if Bitcoin reduces the odds or magnitude of central bank recessions by just 2%, Bitcoin would actually save us far more energy than it uses it would be net carbon negative.
But, no politician talks about that. It somehow raises no interests.
I am not advocating Proof of Stake because I know this will make Bitcoin more centralized but I would like to know how the problem of excessive energy consumption can be overcome in the long run.
It can't. The network needs energy. That energy comes from difference resources, most of which are sustainable according to
the Mining Council. But, just like nearly anything humans utilize, it requires energy to operate properly.
