A Threshold Approach to Investigating Bitcoin's Environmental Impact

Doaa Mohamed Salman; Salma Mahran; Islam Abdelbary

doi:10.34021/ve.2026.09.01(5)

Authors

Doaa Mohamed Salman October University for Modern Sciences and Arts, Giza, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5050-6104
Salma Mahran October University for Modern Sciences and Arts, Giza, Egypt https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1094-0157
Islam Abdelbary Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1727-9071

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2026.09.01(5)

Keywords:

Bitcoin trading, SDG7, developmental asymmetry, threshold regression, energy sustainability, cryptocurrency regulation

Abstract

The rapid growth of Bitcoin trading has created tension between financial innovation and environmental sustainability. While existing research has focused on mining energy consumption, the environmental consequences of trading activity – a primary economic driver – remain underexplored, particularly across different developmental contexts. This study examines whether Bitcoin trading volume affects progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7), which mandates affordable and clean energy, and whether this relationship varies by developmental status and trading intensity. Utilising a balanced panel of 21 developed and developing countries from 2014 to 2023, we employ fixed-effects models, two-stage least squares instrumental variable regression, and threshold regression to analyse the relationship between Bitcoin trading activity and energy sustainability outcomes. The results reveal significant developmental asymmetry. In developing economies, high-volume Bitcoin trading regimes—exceeding a critical threshold of approximately $28.4 trillion in annual volume—are associated with a statistically significant deterioration in SDG7 progress (coefficient = -0.0153, p = 0.031). This effect operates through increased reliance on carbon-intensive electricity generation rather than aggregate energy consumption. No significant impact is observed in developed economies. The allocation of trading volume by exchange denomination may introduce measurement bias, and the analysis does not capture subnational variation in mining concentration. Subsequent studies should employ subnational data, extend analysis to other cryptocurrencies, and investigate which specific institutional characteristics most effectively mitigate environmental damage. Bitcoin's environmental impact is neither uniform nor linear but conditional on institutional context and trading intensity, underscoring the need for context-sensitive, volume-dependent regulatory interventions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2023). Human Development Report 2023. UNDP.

2. Gebara, C. H., & Laurent, A. (2023). National SDG-7 performance assessment to support achieving sustainable energy for all within planetary limits. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 173, Article 112934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112934

3. de Vries, A. (2018). Bitcoin's growing energy problem. Joule, 2(5), 801–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.04.016

4. Krause, M. J., & Tolaymat, T. (2018). Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0152-7

5. Mili, M., Abid, I., & Guesmi, K. (2024). Bitcoin's carbon footprint revisited: Economic and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, Article 18229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118229

6. Basra, J. Q. (2024). Cryptocurrency and blockchain: A comprehensive overview. Global Media Journal, 22, Article 71.

7. Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin. Joule, 4(9), 1843–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.07.013

8. Schinckus, C., Nguyen, C. P., Ling, F. C. H., & Chong, F. H. L. (2020). Crypto-currencies trading and energy consumption. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 355–364 .https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9258

9. Sarkodie, S. A., Ahmed, M. Y., & Owusu, P. A. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic improves market signals of cryptocurrencies—Evidence from Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, and Litecoin. Finance Research Letters, 44, Article 102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102049

10. Truby, J. (2018). Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.009

11. Kohli, V., Chakravarty, S., Chamola, V., Sangwan, K. S., & Zeadally, S. (2022). An analysis of energy consumption and carbon footprints of cryptocurrencies and possible solutions. Digital Communications and Networks, 9(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2022.06.017

12. Mustafa, F., Mordi, C., & Elamer, A. A. (2024). Green gold or carbon beast? Assessing the environmental implications of cryptocurrency trading on clean water management and carbon emission SDGs. Journal of Environmental Management, 367, Article 122059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122059

13. Zhang, W., Li, J., Li, G., & Guo, S. (2023). Emission-reduction effects and carbon market efficiency of China's carbon emissions trading policy. Energy, 268, Article 126734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126734

14. Miśkiewicz, R., Matan, K., & Karnowski, J. (2022). The relationship between cryptocurrency trading and environmental degradation: A panel data analysis. Energies, 15(9), Article 3083. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093083

15. Huynh, A. N. Q., Duong, D., Burggraf, T., Luong, H. T. T., & Bui, N. H. (2021). Energy consumption and Bitcoin market. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 29, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-021-09343-y

16. Corbet, S., Lucey, B., Urquhart, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2019). Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: A systematic analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 62, 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.09.003

17. Attarzadeh, A., & Balcılar, M. (2022). On the dynamic return and volatility connectedness of cryptocurrency, crude oil, clean energy, and stock markets: A time-varying analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(43), 65185–65196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20115-2

18. Bublyk, Y., Borzenko, O., & Hlazova, A. (2023). Energy consumption and carbon footprint of cryptocurrency mining: A global perspective. Energy Economics, 118, Article 106501.

19. Yan, L., Mirza, N., & Umar, M. (2022). The cryptocurrency uncertainties and investment transitions: Evidence from high and low carbon energy funds in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, Article 121326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121326

20. Oğuz, S. (2024). The environmental cost of cryptocurrency: An empirical investigation of Bitcoin trading and CO₂ emissions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(8), 12453–12468.

21. Qin, M., Su, C.-W., Tao, R., & Umar, M. (2023). Is Bitcoin a carbon asset or environmental shelter? Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 25782–25794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23985-7

22. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011

23. Stern, D. I. (2003). The environmental Kuznets curve. International Society for Ecological Economics.

24. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2023). Human Development Report 2023. UNDP.

25. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). World Energy Balances 2023. IEA Publications.

26. World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators 2023. World Bank Group.

27. Worldwide Governance Indicators. (2023). Worldwide Governance Indicators 2023. World Bank Group.

28. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. John Wiley & Sons.

29. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge University Press.

30. Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1

31. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge University Press.