## wpiea2023194-print-pdf

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [wpiea2023194-print-pdf](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf.json)

---

### Specific excise levels and country variation
- Global weighted average excise on electricity used for crypto mining:
  - Climate pollution only: USD 0.045 per kWh
  - Air pollution only: USD 0.042 per kWh
  - Climate and air pollution combined: USD 0.087 per kWh
- Excise by generation mix (Table 4):
  - Coal: Climate pollution USD 0.077; Air pollution USD 0.087; Climate and air pollution USD 0.165
  - Natural gas: Climate pollution USD 0.033; Air pollution USD 0.014; Climate and air pollution USD 0.047
  - Half renewables, half natural gas: Climate pollution USD 0.017; Air pollution USD 0.007; Climate and air pollution USD 0.024
- Country-specific excise examples (Table A.2):
  - Kazakhstan: excise USD 0.08 per kWh
  - Canada: excise USD 0.01 per kWh
  - USA: excise to internalize climate costs USD 0.03 per kWh; tax inclusive of air pollution costs USD 0.05 per kWh
  - Weighted average emissions-intensity excise (without air pollution): USD 0.045 per kWh (Table A.2 entries)
- Ad-valorem equivalents (Table A.2, assuming electricity price of USD 0.05 per kWh):
  - USA: Ad-valorem equivalent 64% at an electricity price of USD 0.05 per kWh
  - Table A.2 examples (as presented):
    - Canada 19% (industry electricity ad-valorem equivalent 0.118%)
    - China 91% (0.1140%)
    - Kazakhstan 166% (0.05170%)
    - Malaysia 103% (0.1148%)
    - Russia 67% (0.0477%)
    - USA 64% (0.1129%)
    - Weighted average 89% (0.0145%)

### Effects on emissions, electricity use, and revenue
- A tax of USD 0.03 per kWh in the United States would:
  - Internalize climate costs (but not air pollution)
  - Reduce domestic cryptocarbon by 39%
  - Raise USD 2 billion in revenue in 2023
- A global tax on electricity used for crypto miners at USD 0.045 per kWh would:
  - Achieve a similar reduction in cryptocarbon as a USD 75 carbon tax per ton
  - Act primarily by improving energy efficiency of mining
- Equivalent carbon price and emissions chart key point:
  - The yellow and green lines show the minimum and maximum increase in the price on global carbon dioxide emissions that would put emissions on track to achieve the global warming target of 2◦C (Figure 3 note)

### Mechanisms, limitations, and cross-border dynamics
- Mechanism:
  - Electricity tax reduces CO2 emissions by crowding out low energy efficiency miners and making proof-of-work more expensive; electricity use for crypto mining is sensitive to electricity price
- Limitation:
  - Electricity excise does not by itself incentivize a shift to clean generation sources unless the excise distinguishes by source, because electricity mixes across sources once it enters the grid
  - It is difficult to tax end use of electricity based on generation source
  - Policies like Renewable Purchase Obligations may shift miners toward renewable sources but not from coal to less-emitting fossil fuels
- Cross-border effects and international coordination:
  - Unilateral corrective taxes can drive miners to other countries, potentially where emissions-intensities are higher
  - From the standpoint of a country imposing a unilateral electricity tax on crypto miners, driving away energy-inefficient miners reduces pressures on electricity and CO2 without a clear competitiveness cost in terms of foregone investment or employment
  - International coordination over corrective measures would be most effective; in the absence of coordination it is unclear which countries would benefit from competing to host miners

### Policy discussion and recommendations
- Preferred policy for climate externalities:
  - Carbon tax on any GHGs is the ideal instrument because it subsumes a tax on electricity of crypto mining and corrects prices across sectors rather than singling out crypto
- Complementary role of taxation and regulation:
  - Taxation can complement regulatory measures (examples: analogies to taxing gambling or financial transactions)
  - If crypto mining continues to rely on dirty energy and proof-of-work, and in the absence of a carbon tax, an excise on electricity for crypto mining is a feasible and relatively easy-to-enforce tool to raise the cost of CO2 emissions from crypto mining activity
- Considerations for design:
  - The exact level of a crypto-mining electricity tax should vary by country to account for differences in emissions-intensity of electricity production
  - The extent to which mining uses renewables or non-energy-hungry authentication protocols reduces the need for corrective measures
  - Other externalities beyond climate would require additional instruments

### Key methodological equations and data inputs (Appendix highlights)
- Global Cryptocarbon identity (A.1):
  - Global Cryptocarbon = sum over countries [(% of global mining)_i × (global electricity used for mining) × (CO2 emissions per unit of electricity)_i]
- Electricity used for mining (A.2):
  - Global electricity used for mining (TWh) = average energy efficiency (J/TH) × hash rate (TH/second) × 60 × 60 × 24 × 365 × (PUE)
  - PUE defined as 1 divided by the percent of energy used by miners to produce hashes rather than other activities
- Breakeven energy efficiency (A.3):
  - Breakeven energy efficiency (J/TH) = Block reward (BTC/Block) × Crypto price (USD/BTC) / (Hashes required (TH/Block) × Electricity price (USD/J))
- Average energy efficiency (A.4):
  - Average energy efficiency = Average of equipment more efficient than breakeven energy efficiency
- Scaling other crypto assets to Bitcoin electricity (A.5):
  - Electricity used for mining_other = Electricity used for mining_BTC × (Market share_other / Market share_BTC)
- Emissions calculation (A.6):
  - Emissions (mln tons)_c = Electricity used for mining (TWh)_c × (CO2 (kg) / kWh)
- Energy demand projection (A.7):
  - E_t,s,f = E_t−1,s,f × (GDP_t/GDP_t−1)^{θ_s,f} × (1/(1+a_s,f))^{1+ε_s,f} × (p_t,s,f/p_t−1,s,f)^{η_s,f} + ε_s,f + [η_s,f × ε_s,f]
  - Parameters: θ income elasticities (0.3 to 1), a rate of exogenous energy efficiency improvement (0.5% to 1% per year), ε price elasticity (−0.1 to −0.7), η elasticity of consumption rate (−0.2 to −1.2)
- Generation mix dynamics (A.8) and fuel switching via conditional own-price elasticity ξ (−0.5)
- Conversion from carbon tax to specific electricity tax for crypto mining (A.9):
  - Tax in USD per kWh = (Carbon tax in USD/Ton of CO2 × Ton of CO2/kWh) [Climate externality term] + (Ton of PM2.5/kWh × Death/Ton of PM2.5 × Monetary cost of death in USD) [Air pollution externality term]
  - The air pollution mortality term is set to zero when computing excise correcting only for global warming
- Equipment-profitability relationship (A.10):
  - Profitable equipment = a × Breakeven energy efficiency, with estimated â = 0.45

### Representative data points and assumptions used
- Electricity price assumptions:
  - Bitcoin: USD 0.05 per kWh (Stoll et al., 2019; CCAF, 2023a)
  - Ethereum in 2021: USD 0.10 per kWh (de Vries et al., 2022)
- PUE assumption: 1.1 (CCAF (2023a))
- Emissions-intensity example:
  - United States emissions-intensity reported as 430 grams per kWh in 2019 (Table A.2)
  - Alternate estimate cited: 363 grams per kWh for 2021 by de Vries et al., 2022
- Global carbon price benchmark:
  - Carbon price in the range of USD 75 per ton is used as a benchmark to achieve temperature targets; a global average excise of USD 0.045 per kWh is presented as achieving a similar reduction in cryptocarbon as a USD 75 carbon tax per ton

*Source: wpiea2023194-print-pdf — https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf*

### 0.087 per kWh if it internalizes air pollution costs in addition to climate pollution (at the average

### wpiea2023194-print-pdf - 0.087 per kWh if it internalizes air pollution costs in addition to climate pollution (at the average

### Specific excise levels and country variation
- Global weighted average excise on electricity used for crypto mining:
  - Climate pollution only: USD 0.045 per kWh
  - Air pollution only: USD 0.042 per kWh
  - Climate and air pollution combined: USD 0.087 per kWh
- Excise by generation mix (Table 4):
  - Coal: Climate pollution USD 0.077; Air pollution USD 0.087; Climate and air pollution USD 0.165
  - Natural gas: Climate pollution USD 0.033; Air pollution USD 0.014; Climate and air pollution USD 0.047
  - Half renewables, half natural gas: Climate pollution USD 0.017; Air pollution USD 0.007; Climate and air pollution USD 0.024
- Country-specific excise examples (Table A.2):
  - Kazakhstan: excise USD 0.08 per kWh
  - Canada: excise USD 0.01 per kWh
  - USA: excise to internalize climate costs USD 0.03 per kWh; tax inclusive of air pollution costs USD 0.05 per kWh
  - Weighted average emissions-intensity excise (without air pollution): USD 0.045 per kWh (Table A.2 entries)
- Ad-valorem equivalents (Table A.2, assuming electricity price of USD 0.05 per kWh):
  - USA: Ad-valorem equivalent 64% at an electricity price of USD 0.05 per kWh (text)
  - Table A.2 examples: Canada 19% (industry electricity ad-valorem equivalent 0.118%), China 91% (0.1140%), Kazakhstan 166% (0.05170%), Malaysia 103% (0.1148%), Russia 67% (0.0477%), USA 64% (0.1129%), Weighted average 89% (0.0145%). Note: numbers in Table A.2 are presented as shown.

### Effects on emissions, electricity use, and revenue
- A tax of USD 0.03 per kWh in the United States would:
  - Internalize climate costs (but not air pollution)
  - Reduce domestic cryptocarbon by 39%
  - Raise USD 2 billion in revenue in 2023
- A global tax on electricity used for crypto miners at USD 0.045 per kWh would achieve a similar reduction in cryptocarbon as a USD 75 carbon tax per ton, primarily by improving energy efficiency of mining.
- Equivalent carbon price and emissions chart key point: the yellow and green lines show the minimum and maximum increase in the price on global carbon dioxide emissions that would put emissions on track to achieve the global warming target of 2◦C (Figure 3 note).

### Mechanisms, limitations, and cross-border dynamics
- Mechanism:
  - Electricity tax reduces CO2 emissions by crowding out low energy efficiency miners and making proof-of-work more expensive; electricity use for crypto mining is sensitive to electricity price.
- Limitation:
  - Electricity excise does not by itself incentivize a shift to clean generation sources unless the excise distinguishes by source, because electricity mixes across sources once it enters the grid.
  - It is difficult to tax end use of electricity based on generation source.
  - Policies like Renewable Purchase Obligations may shift miners toward renewable sources but not from coal to less-emitting fossil fuels.
- Cross-border effects and international coordination:
  - Unilateral corrective taxes can drive miners to other countries, potentially where emissions-intensities are higher.
  - From the standpoint of a country imposing a unilateral electricity tax on crypto miners, driving away energy-inefficient miners reduces pressures on electricity and CO2 without a clear competitiveness cost in terms of foregone investment or employment.
  - International coordination over corrective measures would be most effective; in the absence of coordination it is unclear which countries would benefit from competing to host miners.

### Policy discussion and recommendations
- Preferred policy for climate externalities:
  - Carbon tax on any GHGs is the ideal instrument because it subsumes a tax on electricity of crypto mining and corrects prices across sectors rather than singling out crypto.
- Complementary role of taxation and regulation:
  - Taxation can complement regulatory measures (examples: analogies to taxing gambling or financial transactions).
  - If crypto mining continues to rely on dirty energy and proof-of-work, and in the absence of a carbon tax, an excise on electricity for crypto mining is a feasible and relatively easy-to-enforce tool to raise the cost of CO2 emissions from crypto mining activity.
- Considerations:
  - The exact level of a crypto-mining electricity tax should vary by country to account for differences in emissions-intensity of electricity production.
  - The extent to which mining uses renewables or non-energy-hungry authentication protocols reduces the need for corrective measures.
  - Other externalities beyond climate would require additional instruments.

### Key methodological equations and data inputs (Appendix highlights)
- Global Cryptocarbon identity (A.1):
  - Global Cryptocarbon = sum over countries [(% of global mining)_i × (global electricity used for mining) × (CO2 emissions per unit of electricity)_i]
- Electricity used for mining (A.2):
  - Global electricity used for mining (TWh) = average energy efficiency (J/TH) × hash rate (TH/second) × 60 × 60 × 24 × 365 × (PUE)
  - PUE defined as 1 divided by the percent of energy used by miners to produce hashes rather than other activities.
- Breakeven energy efficiency (A.3):
  - Breakeven energy efficiency (J/TH) = Block reward (BTC/Block) × Crypto price (USD/BTC) / (Hashes required (TH/Block) × Electricity price (USD/J))
- Average energy efficiency (A.4):
  - Average energy efficiency = Average of equipment more efficient than breakeven energy efficiency
- Scaling other crypto assets to Bitcoin electricity (A.5):
  - Electricity used for mining_other = Electricity used for mining_BTC × (Market share_other / Market share_BTC)
- Emissions calculation (A.6):
  - Emissions (mln tons)_c = Electricity used for mining (TWh)_c × (CO2 (kg) / kWh)
- Energy demand projection (A.7):
  - E_t,s,f = E_t−1,s,f × (GDP_t/GDP_t−1)^{θ_s,f} × (1/(1+a_s,f))^{1+ε_s,f} × (p_t,s,f/p_t−1,s,f)^{η_s,f} + ε_s,f + [η_s,f × ε_s,f]
  - Parameters: θ income elasticities (0.3 to 1), a rate of exogenous energy efficiency improvement (0.5% to 1% per year), ε price elasticity (−0.1 to −0.7), η elasticity of consumption rate (−0.2 to −1.2).
- Generation mix dynamics (A.8) and fuel switching via conditional own-price elasticity ξ (−0.5).
- Conversion from carbon tax to specific electricity tax for crypto mining (A.9):
  - Tax in USD per kWh = (Carbon tax in USD/Ton of CO2 × Ton of CO2/kWh) [Climate externality term] + (Ton of PM2.5/kWh × Death/Ton of PM2.5 × Monetary cost of death in USD) [Air pollution externality term]
  - The air pollution mortality term is set to zero when computing excise correcting only for global warming.
- Equipment-profitability relationship (A.10):
  - Profitable equipment = a × Breakeven energy efficiency, with estimated â = 0.45

### Representative data points and assumptions used
- Electricity price assumptions:
  - Bitcoin: USD 0.05 per kWh (Stoll et al., 2019; CCAF, 2023a)
  - Ethereum in 2021: USD 0.10 per kWh (de Vries et al., 2022)
- PUE assumption: 1.1 (CCAF (2023a))
- Emissions-intensity example: United States emissions-intensity reported as 430 grams per kWh in 2019 (Table A.2); various studies report slightly different values (e.g., 363 grams per kWh for 2021 by de Vries et al., 2022).
- Global carbon price benchmark:
  - Carbon price in the range of USD 75 per ton is used as a benchmark to achieve temperature targets; a global average excise of USD 0.045 per kWh is presented as achieving a similar reduction in cryptocarbon as a USD 75 carbon tax per ton.

*Source: wpiea2023194-print-pdf — https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf*

### References

### wpiea2023194-print-pdf - References

### Empirical studies on cryptocurrency energy use and carbon footprint
- Agur, I., Jose, D., Xavier, L., Soledad, M. P., Damiano, S., Hervé, T., and German, V. B. (2022). “Digital Currencies and Energy Consumption”, FinTech Notes No 2022/006.
- Benetton, M., Compiani, G., and Morse, A. (2021). “When Cryptomining Comes to Town: High Electricity-use Spillovers to the Local Economy”, University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2023-78.
- Bruno, A., Weber, P., and Yates, A. J. (2023). “Can Bitcoin Mining Increase Renewable Electricity Capacity”? Resource and Energy Economics,74, 101376.
- de Vries, A. (2018). Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule,2(5), 801–805. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118301776
- de Vries, A., Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2022). “Revisiting Bitcoin’s Carbon Footprint”. Joule,6(3), 498–502. https : / / www. sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S2542435122000861
- Dittmar, L., and Praktiknjo, A. (2019). Could Bitcoin Emissions Push Global Warming Above2 ◦ C? Nature Climate Change,9, 656–657. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0534-5
- Foteinis, S. (2018). “Bitcoin’s Alarming Carbon Footprint”. Nature,554(169). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01625-x
- Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2020). “Energy Consumption of Cryptocurrencies Beyond Bitcoin”. Joule,4, 1843–1846. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838201/
- Jones, B., Goodkind, A., and Berrens, R. (2023). “Economic Estimation of Bitcoin Mining’s Climate Damages Demonstrates Closer Resemblance to Digital Crude than Digital Gold”. Scientific Reports,12 (14512).
- Köhler, S., and Pizzo, M. (2019). “Life Cycle Assessment of Bitcoin Mining”. Environmental Science & Technology,53, 13598–13606. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b05687
- Krause, M., and Tolaymat, T. (2018). “Quantification of Energy and Carbon costs for Mining Cryptocurrencies”. Nature Sustainability,1, 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0152-7
- Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Vranken, H., Koomey, J., and Malmodin, J. (2019). Implausible Projections Overestimate Near-Term Bitcoin CO2 Emissions”. Nature Climate Change,9, 653–654. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0535-4
- Mora, C., Rollins, R., Taladay, K., and et al. (2018). “Bitcoin Emissions Alone could Push Global Warming Above2 ◦ C”. Nature Climate Change,8, 931–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8
- Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L., and Gallersdörfer, U. (2019). “The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin”. Joule,3(7), 1647–1661. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435119302557
- Timilsina, G. R. (2022). “Carbon Taxes”. Journal of Economic Literature,60(4), 1456–1502.
- Saleh, F. (2020). Blockchain without Waste: Proof-of-Stake. The Review of Financial Studies,34(3), 1156–1190.

### Data sources, indices, and methodological resources
- CBECI. (2022). “Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index”. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci
- CCAF. (2023a). “Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index,” Methodology”. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/methodology
- CCAF. (2023b). “Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, CBECI SHA-256 Mining Equipment List”. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15bkGk6cpIGK9DKcytnErB0VZfihPkF1TsAYd4_Nac_Y/edit?pli=1#gid=718996821
- Coin Metrics. (2023). “Crypto Data”. https://coinmetrics.io/
- Coin Shares. (2022). “Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index”. https://coinshares.com/
- Digiconomist. (2022). “The Bitcoin Mining Network: Energy and Carbon Impact”. https : / / a . storyblok.com/f/155294/x/0c3f3837c8/coinshares_bitcoin_mining_report_jan_2022.pdf
- Frankfurt School. (2021). “The Carbon Emissions of Bitcoin From an Investor Perspective”. http://explore-ip.com/2021-The-Carbon-Emissions-of-Bitcoin-From-an-Investor-Perspective.pdf
- Forexsuggest. (2022). “Global Impact of Crypto Trading”. https://forexsuggest.com/global-impact-of-crypto-trading/
- Coin Metrics. (2023). “Crypto Data”. https://coinmetrics.io/

### Policy, taxation, legal, and crime-related literature
- Baer, K., Mooij, R. D., Hebous, S., and Keen, M. (2023). “Taxing Cryptocurrencies”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,39, 478–497.
- Keen, M., and Konrad, K. (2013). The Theory of International Tax Competition and Coordination. In A. J. Auerbach, R. Chetty, M. Feldstein, and E. Saez (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics (pp. 257–328). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
- Keen, M. (1998). The Balance between Specific and Ad Valorem Taxation. Fiscal Studies,19(1), 1–37. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:19:y:1998:i:1:p:1-37
- Keen, M., Parry, I., and Roaf, J. (2022). “Border Carbon Adjustments: Rationale, Design and Impact”. Fiscal Studies,43(3), 209–234.
- Foley, S., Jonathan, K., and Putninš, T. (2019). “Sex, Drugs, and Bitcoin: How Much Illegal Activity Is Financed through Cryptocurrencies?” Review of Financial Studies,32, 1798–1853.
- Europol. (2022). “Cryptocurrencies: Tracing the Evolution of Criminal Finances”, Europol Spotlight, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Schwarz, N., Chen, K., Poh, K., Jackson, G., Kao, K., Fernando, F., and Markevych, M. (2021). “Virtual Assets and Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (1): Some Legal and Practical Considerations”, FinTech Notes No 2021/002.
- Ferré-Sadurní, L., and Ashford, G. (2022). “New York Enacts 2-Year Ban on Some Crypto-Mining Operations”. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/nyregion/crypto-mining-ban-hochul.html
- French, M. J. (2023). “New York Partially Banned Cryptocurrency Mining. Now Environmentalists Want More”. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/07/new-york-cryptocurrency-mining-ban-00072564

### Climate policy, assessment tools, and broader context
- Black, S., Chateau, J., Jaumotte, F., Parry, I., Schwerhoff, G., Thube, S., and Zhunussova, K. (2022). “Getting on Track to Net Zero: Accelerating a Global Just Transition in This Decade”, Staff Climate Note No. 2022/010, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
- Black, S., Liu, A. A., Parry, I. W., and Vernon, N. (2023). “IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data: 2023 Update”, IMF Working Paper No. 2023/169.
- Black, S., Parry, I., Mylonas, V., Vernon, N., and Zhunussova, K. (2022). “The IMF-World Bank Climate Policy Assessment Tool (CPAT): A Model to Help Countries Mitigate Climate Change”, IMF Working Paper No. WP/23/128.
- Baunsgaard, t., and Vernon, N. (2023). “Climate Change Mitigation and Extractive Industries: Scenario Analysis of Revenue Implications”, Staff Climate Note Forthcoming, IMF.
- IMF. (2019). “How to Mitigate Climate Change?” https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/FM/Issues/2019/09/12/fiscal-monitor-october-2019
- IMF-WB. (2023). “Climate Policy Assessment Tool Documentation”. https://cpmodel.github.io/cpat_public/
- IPCC. (2022). “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
- OECD. (2022). “Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Turning Climate Targets into Climate Action”, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
- Stiglitz, J., and Stern, N. (2017). “Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices”, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Development Association, The World Bank. https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/report- of- the- highlevel-commission-on-carbon-prices/
- Drupp, M. A., Nesje, F., and Schmidt, R. (forthcoming). “Pricing Carbon: Evidence from Expert Recommendatio”. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.

### Other relevant analyses and notes
- Hallaburda, H., Gans, J., and Gandal, N. (2022). “The Microeconomics of Crytpocurrencies”. Journal of Economic Literature,60, 971–1013.
- Krause, M., and Tolaymat, T. (2018). “Quantification of Energy and Carbon costs for Mining Cryptocurrencies”. Nature Sustainability,1, 711–718.
- Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Vranken, H., Koomey, J., and Malmodin, J. (2019). Implausible Projections Overestimate Near-Term Bitcoin CO2 Emissions”. Nature Climate Change,9, 653–654.
- Dittmar, L., and Praktiknjo, A. (2019). Could Bitcoin Emissions Push Global Warming Above2 ◦ C? Nature Climate Change,9, 656–657.
- Saleh, F. (2020). Blockchain without Waste: Proof-of-Stake. The Review of Financial Studies,34(3), 1156–1190.

*Canonical URL: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023194-print-pdf.pdf_