The latest blockchain craze is non-fungible tokens, more commonly known as NFTs, however there has started to be a pushback from the art community that makes many of the NFT designs. While there are still many who are captivated by the profit potential of these new digital works of art, there are others who have begun to tell the story of a monster killing the earth. But whether viewed as a financial savior or an ecological disaster, there is no doubt that NFTs are still considered by many to be the cutting edge and possibly the future when it comes to digital art.
The persistent issue is the environmental impact of NFTs, Nft Development particularly in this era of climate change, carbon offsetting, and the New Green Deal. Artists who are also staunch environmentalists have recently started to shy away from NFTs, even where it could cost them millions of dollars in revenue. These artists claim that the environmental impact of NFTs is simply too great.
For those new to this digital art form, we are going to examine what an NFT is and how we can decide whether its environmental impact is justified or not.
What is an NFT?
A non-fungible token, or NFT , is a unique digital construct that has been registered in a blockchain ledger to indelibly record the authenticity and ownership of the construct. NFTs were created as a way for artists to ensure that their digital art cannot be faked. This ability to establish authenticity and ownership is critical to digital artworks, as replicas are so easy to produce and so difficult to discover.
Because NFTs are registered as blockchain assets, they are minted in the same way as cryptocurrency tokens. Currently, most NFTs are created on the Ethereum blockchain. When minted, a unique entry is created in the blockchain ledger that identifies the asset created. Whenever it is sold, the asset transfer is also recorded on the blockchain, meaning ownership of the asset is always known and publicly available. This also allows the artist to get a percentage of the sale price not only on the first sale, but also on each subsequent sale of the NFT.
When a digital artwork is minted in this way, it can still be copied and distributed as a .jpg, .png, or .gif as usual, but the associated NFT will always be unique.
What is the carbon footprint of an NFT?
Before discussing the carbon footprint of an NFT, we need to know what exactly a carbon footprint is. A carbon footprint is an estimate of all the carbon that is emitted during the process of creating and consuming a product. Depending on what the product is, this process can be dramatically different. For example, when manufacturing a glass bottle, what type of input is used? Are they raw materials or recycled materials? What does the bottle contain and how will it be transported to its final destination? All of these things will affect the carbon footprint of the glass bottle.
Because there are so many variables in the carbon footprint, we almost always have to estimate what the carbon footprint of any item or person is. Because calculating the exact footprint would be so complex, using an estimate can be extremely helpful in understanding the impact an item, such as an NFT, could have on the environment.
In the case of NFTs, there are a number of steps in the minting process that have no known carbon footprint, and there are few research studies on the subject. That said, Digiconomist, a website that examines the unintended consequences of digital trends, has developed an Ethereum Power Consumption Index (you can view it here ) that estimates the of CO2 (as of May 2021). That is equivalent to the carbon footprint of 82,648 VISA transactions or 6,215 hours of YouTube viewing.
There are others who have made predictions about the carbon footprint of NFTs explaining the fact that every time an NFT is minted or sold, another transaction is created on the Ethereum blockchain. For example, artist Memo Akten has suggested that minting an NFT has a carbon footprint of Nft generator approximately 48kg of CO2. In any case, we can say that the carbon footprint that NFTs create is unusually high and probably unacceptable for the act of creating a digital work of art.
Because of this, there have been a number of artists who have decided to avoid NFTs, even if it means losing out on a huge amount of revenue. A choice like this has been compared to avoiding plane flights, cycling to work, or avoiding beef in your diet. This is because all of these things are not a necessity and by removing them from our lives we can have a positive impact on our own carbon footprint.
For example, beef has a carbon footprint that is about ten times that of chicken, so removing meat from our diet can have a significant impact on our carbon footprint over years and decades. And if avoiding beef is worthwhile to reduce our carbon footprint, then avoiding creating or buying NFTs is certainly worthwhile.
Climate change is not caused by division dual options
Some people claim that making dual choices to reduce our own carbon footprint is next to useless, as just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of the world’s carbon emissions. Reducing personal carbon emissions can seem like trying to drain a lake with a thimble. Isn’t it the responsibility of corporations and governments to make the necessary changes to reduce our impact on the Earth’s climate?
In reality, dual individuals collectively have greater power in their consumption choices. We can see that this is the increasing use of sustainable items instead of single use products. This is the very definition of how consumer decisions can affect corporate behavior.
Comments
0 comment