The Merge aftermath: Did Ethereum really become green?
Now that some time has passed, it's worth asking what really changed. Has Ethereum become as energy efficient as promised? Did the Merge fix the environmental criticism that followed the network for years? Let's look at the aftermath and what it really means to be a 'green' blockchain.
How the Merge Changed Ethereum's Energy Use
Ethereum used to run on a system called proof-of-work, where miners used powerful machines to validate transactions. That process burned through huge amounts of electricity. At its peak, Ethereum's energy usage matched that of some small countries. This sparked criticism from environmental groups and pushed projects, including those on the
The Merge introduced a cleaner model called proof-of-stake. Instead of solving power-hungry puzzles, validators now secure the network by locking up ETH. Here's what changed:
Energy consumption dropped by over 99% after the switch.
Mining was replaced by staking, ending the need for expensive equipment.
The network became more efficient, using far less electricity per transaction.
Eco-conscious platforms joined the network, from NFTs to gaming apps.
Reduced costs and cleaner operation attracted developers to build new projects.
Ethereum's shift was not just about sustainability. It opened doors for broader adoption, especially in industries that care about transparency and energy use.
Has Ethereum's Carbon Footprint Actually Improved?
Reducing energy use was the main goal of
Ethereum's total energy use has dropped by over 99%. That's a huge improvement. It also shifted Ethereum's public image. Many now see it as the 'cleaner' alternative to Bitcoin. But having a smaller footprint doesn't mean there's no footprint at all.
How Ethereum Compares Today, Step-by-Step:
Here's a breakdown of what changed after the Merge and what those changes really mean:
Estimated CO₂ output: ~0.6 metric tons per year. Before the Merge, it was in the millions.
Energy per transaction: Less than 0.01 kWh. That's about the same as a Google search.
Bitcoin comparison: Bitcoin still uses over 100 TWh a year and emits tens of millions of tons of CO₂.
Top carbon trackers: Groups like Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute and Digiconomist track Ethereum's progress.
Ethereum now fits better into ESG conversations. Some funds and apps that once avoided crypto are now including it because of these changes. But not every validator runs on clean power. And if Ethereum keeps growing, power use could rise again. The Merge was a huge step, but it wasn't the final one.
Institutional Adoption and Green Narratives
Ethereum's switch to proof-of-stake did more than lower energy use. It also shifted how institutions see the network. Before the Merge, Ethereum faced the same criticism as Bitcoin for consuming too much energy. That kept many ESG-focused funds and climate-conscious investors from getting involved, even as Ethereum powered major parts of DeFi and NFTs. After the Merge, with energy use cut by over 99 percent, Ethereum became one of the most environmentally friendly blockchains.
This change opened the door to wider institutional interest. Investors began to view Ethereum as a platform that could evolve and align with modern sustainability goals. The improved energy profile fits better with corporate ESG standards, making it easier to include in portfolios. Because of this, Ethereum is now seeing increased attention from asset managers, fintech platforms, and even banks. The shift is not just about image. Cleaner technology leads to real investment from groups that would not have considered it before.
Life After the Merge: How Ethereum Users Have Responded
The Merge was more than just a technical change. It shifted how people view Ethereum's purpose and long-term role in the crypto world. Before the switch to proof-of-stake, Ethereum was often criticized for its energy use and scalability problems. After the update, the network gained a reputation for being cleaner and more future-ready.
That shift influenced behavior across the board. More users began staking ETH, developers turned their focus to scaling tools, and many projects embraced the idea of Ethereum as a sustainable base layer. It's not perfect, but it's no longer seen as the energy hog it once was.
Ways the Merge changed user habits:
Staking increased: Many users now treat staking as a regular way to earn and support the chain.
Green appeal grew: Lower energy use helped attract users who care about sustainability.
Builders refocused: Developer attention shifted to lower fees and better speed.
Investor confidence returned: Some had paused activity before the Merge and came back after.
App messaging evolved: DApps and platforms now highlight Ethereum's cleaner footprint.
Tip: If you're active on Ethereum, track how your gas usage and staking habits have changed over time. It helps you see whether the Merge is matching your expectations in real terms.
What Still Needs Fixing on Ethereum
The Merge improved Ethereum's energy usage, but it didn't solve every problem. Several ongoing issues continue to affect usability, performance, and decentralization. While switching to proof-of-stake was a major step, it left some challenges untouched.
Gas fees are still high when the network is busy. Staking also introduces concerns about power concentration, as a small number of platforms now control a large portion of staked ETH. For many users, these factors create friction and uncertainty.
Common concerns post-Merge include:
High transaction fees: Still a major barrier for everyday users.
Validator centralization: A handful of entities hold too much control.
Scalability limits: Network still lacks the speed for mass adoption.
User experience issues: Complex tools and confusing wallets.
Long upgrade timeline: Future improvements take years to roll out.
Conclusion
The Merge marked real progress for Ethereum, especially by cutting energy use. But it did not fix everything. Fees remain high, and control still leans toward a small group of validators. Ethereum is greener now, but it has more to prove. For the network to reach its full potential, it needs to become faster, cheaper, and more open to everyone. People want more than clean energy. They want a system that delivers on its original promises. The Merge was a strong step forward, but it is only part of a longer path to real change.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
12-07-2025
- Mail & Guardian
Mining's revival must also deal with its legacy
New social contract due: Mining's harms are mainly to the environment – water, air, and soil, for example – but these have consequences for mining affected communities' health and their land. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy Mining is still central to the South African economy. It employs roughly 480 000 people directly. With an estimated dependency ratio of 10 to one, the industry essentially supports close to five million people. That's a twelfth of the country's population. Demand for minerals and metals is not slowing down. But our gold mining sector will close down at some stage — even current high gold prices cannot sustain going deeper because of safety risks and the associated expense. There will come a point where marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit. Outside of gold, South Africa should be a global mining powerhouse. For the past 20 years, however, there has been very little exploration or production expansion investment. In partnership with Mining Dialogues 360°, Good Governance Africa set out to explore what it would take to revive the mining industry and ensure that it becomes the catalyst for broad-based development. It became clear that the country needs a new vision for mining that will reconcile conflicting interests that seem to perennially be at loggerheads with each other. Any new vision needs to begin with the end in mind; what do we want mining to do for the country? We can all wax lyrical about that, but there's an obstacle that must be dealt with first. Mining has an awful history in South Africa of imposing severe negative externalities onto both society and the environment. These are the divergences between private returns and social costs. In other words, companies mine and sell gold, reporting profits in the process, but they pollute rivers, create sinkholes, precipitate acid mine drainage, exploit labour and damage the social fabric of society in the process. None of these ecological and social costs are recorded in company financial statements. This speaks to a broader global problem, but it's particularly acute in mining, especially here at home. It's often mine-adjacent communities that bear the brunt of this malaise. In South Africa, migrant labour exacerbates the social costs on two fronts. First, many workers who migrate to the mines end up supporting two families; HIV proliferation has been extensive as a result. Second, many workers end up retiring to the former homelands and dying soon thereafter of silicosis or some other mining-related illness. The social costs of mining are clearly immeasurable and significant. At our most recent dialogue, civil society representatives expressed the view that the industry seems to be geared towards short-term production targets and immediate profitability at the expense of long-term (ecologically sound) thinking and optimal wealth generation for all stakeholders. Strategies to attain consensus — and then execute on — a new vision need to be informed by meaningful discussions, not mere consultation as some kind of box-ticking exercise. Moreover, free, prior and informed consent should be continually sought, underwritten by an acknowledgement that 'no' to mining is also a legitimate response from mine-affected or potentially affected communities. They are often left without solutions to the problems created by mining, and this needs to be addressed through purposeful discussions, not cursory consultations that amount to people being told what is going to happen to them. Many of the harms mining causes are environmental. Regulations exist to prevent such harm, but enforcement is inconsistent. Even when the legal framework is strong, communities often lack the knowledge and tools to hold companies accountable. This asymmetry fosters moral hazard: companies externalise harm while reporting profit. Bridging these gaps requires education, in local languages, to empower rights-based action. Beyond legal compliance, mining companies frequently bypass meaningful engagement. Social and labour plans (SLPs), meant to channel mining benefits into development, are often drawn up with minimal community involvement. The process is top-down, consultative in name only, and poorly documented. The SLPs are frequently geographically misaligned, excluding communities downstream of operations who still suffer the effects of pollution. They also rarely prepare labour for life after mining. The result is development that is poorly targeted, unaccountable and unsustainable. Some companies worsen these dynamics by co-opting local activists or working through pliant intermediaries, fuelling internal divisions. This divide-and-rule approach minimises risk for companies but leaves communities fragmented and disempowered. The SLPs then become tools of corporate image management rather than genuine vehicles for transformation. Often, they fund short-lived projects that decline and often collapse once the mine closes, unlinked to local integrated development plans (IDPs). Even where integration is attempted, weak municipal IDPs render it ineffective. Greenwashing is common. Companies promote their environmental, social and governance credentials, but scrutiny reveals minimal ecological remediation, long-term plans for restoration and socio-economic upliftment. Executives typically stay removed from community realities, unwilling to talk to residents and local authorities. This maintains a status quo in which firms pursue reputational insulation over authentic partnership. For communities, this entrenches an adversarial stance. Trust is absent where engagement is asymmetric. In the absence of viable livelihood alternatives, some residents resort to informal mining. Labelling them 'illegal' dehumanises people who are often driven by survival or coerced into impossible positions by organised crime bosses. The official response, including recent commentary after the Stilfontein disaster, has lacked empathy and insight. It's no surprise that resentment festers where people are treated as expendable. A political culture defined by patronage and corruption fails to meet the complexity of this problem. Land dispossession remains largely unresolved. Many mine-affected communities still have no title deeds, decades after democracy. That dispossession underpins the call for resource nationalism, especially among the young and disillusioned. There are strong veins of resentment here into which unscrupulous politicians can tap. While social grants may suppress open rebellion — some dialogue members mused whether welfare hadn't placated revolution — frustration simmers. Without structural change based on policy reform, the call for redress will grow louder. Efforts to build unified community responses face further obstacles. Activists expressed disillusionment with NGOs that impose external agendas. Some community gatekeepers, meanwhile, have been accused of colluding with mining firms or of blocking access to resources. Mining companies often work with whoever shouts the loudest, further muddying accountability. These dynamics prevent the emergence of a coherent response voice. Communities are not homogeneous, nor should we expect them to be, but this should not hinder the expression of a heterogeneous set of voices. The solution requires recognising that power is layered. Without coordination and organisation, communities remain vulnerable to fragmentation, as they struggle to build countervailing power. Yet unity is hard to achieve when trust is scarce and gatekeepers act in their own interest. Still, any serious vision for the sector must support such coordination as the basis for accountability and equitable negotiation. Two distinct imperatives shape mining's future. On one highway, government and industry seek investment-friendly conditions. On the other, communities seek restitution and opportunity. These paths need not be in conflict, but reconciliation demands a vision centred on shared prosperity. Capital must not be prioritised over labour and land. Community benefit must become a measure of mining's success. That shift requires credible, trackable metrics. One proposal is a national indicator for 'community well-being', with mining firms accountable for positive movement in that measure. This would reframe profitability to include social return, not just shareholder value. Others suggest revenue-sharing mechanisms such as Australia's 'royalties for regions' scheme. But concerns about corruption, especially in community trusts, remain valid. Without institutional reform, even well-designed systems can be subverted. A new social contract is overdue. Mining cannot continue to operate in enclaves of profit surrounded by poverty. It must embrace a model of co-determination with affected communities and acknowledge its historical legacy. That demands not just consultation but free, prior, informed and continued consent. It demands not just compliance, but transformation. Without these shifts, mining will remain a source of conflict instead of development. Ross Harvey is the chief research officer at Good Governance Africa (GGA)-SARO. Mining Dialogues 360° and GGA are hosting a plenary dialogue for all mining industry stakeholders on 29 July. To attend, please email
IOL News
09-07-2025
- IOL News
Is generative AI all it's cracked up to be? Not yet and not without humans
Generative AI has promised similar seismic change but unlike those other technologies, it is actually here to stay. It is powerful and it is changing the way businesses operate. Is it all it's cracked up to be though? Not yet. Image: Gerd Altmann/Pixbabay It's been about two years since generative AI exploded onto the mass market and into the boardroom buzzword lexicon. What began as a curiosity has quickly snowballed into a business necessity. It might sound hyperbolic, but those who are not exploring how AI can support their businesses are already falling behind. But we've seen big tech ideas arrive, explode into the mass market and then quietly subside before. Remember when brands couldn't launch NFTs and Metaverse activations fast enough? Generative AI has promised similar seismic change but unlike those other technologies, it is actually here to stay. It is powerful and it is changing the way businesses operate. Is it all it's cracked up to be though? Not yet. What AI is doing well right now At Euphoria, we've been working with AI tools for a while and their value is clear. From a productivity standpoint, it's like having a hyper-intelligent colleague in the room. Except this one doesn't get tired, doesn't take smoke breaks and doesn't recoil at the thought of sifting through hundreds of data points on a spreadsheet. One of the biggest advantages for us has been in customer service analysis. Each day, our system generates hundreds of call transcripts which, when fed into an AI tool, allows us to identify poor tone or negative sentiment. A human, in our case our Operations Director Leonie Stanley, then reviews those flagged interactions each day and uses them as training opportunities. Without AI, reviewing those transcripts would take hours of manual work and problems would probably go undetected. What AI does exceptionally well is make the invisible, visible. It transforms masses of data, which might be ignored or under-utilised in a business, into useful insights that can help improve operations, drive efficiency or change behaviours. AI 's improvement areas There are some exciting generative AI use cases that are emerging but still need maturing. Voice agents, for instance, are improving rapidly and are capable of handling everything from ordering a pizza to directing calls. But there are aspects of the tech that aren't perfectly seamless yet, like the way even a one second delay between responses feels awkward to the human ear. Maybe it's because the human brain craves connection, and in an emotionally charged interaction, that delay is a reminder that you're speaking to an AI agent simulating empathy rather than a human being actually feeling it. I don't believe they'll ever fully replace the need for humans, but in scenarios where there is a choice between an AI agent and no help at all, AI agents can make a big difference. In call centres, we're seeing some businesses using AI agents to handle overflow calls and basic triage. This works, because it's an effective stopgap which removes the frustration that would come from long wait times. There's also a strong use case for AI agents in owner-run and small businesses where they just don't have the human resources to do it all. If they're missing calls and not getting to customers, an AI agent provides service where previously there was none. That's a win-win for both the business and the customer and I'm excited to see how small business use of generative AI develops. The future of generative AI Generative AI tools are developing rapidly and they're starting to be integrated everywhere from coding to virtual receptionists. In five years, the technology might be able to do almost anything. But that doesn't mean it should. We're on the brink of changes that will be more profound than the Industrial Revolution and now is the time where we need to decide what we want AI to do, and what we want to preserve for humans. There is growing evidence that rather than connecting humans, technology is making us lonelier. AI should make us more human, not less. That means handing over the grunt work to the AI, while protecting the value that comes from connection, intuition and creativity. It's a thin line to walk but if we want both humanity and generative AI to succeed, we need to embrace technology while always putting people first. Warren Hawkins, Managing Director, Euphoria Telecom Warren Hawkins, Managing Director, Euphoria Telecom Image: Supplied.
TimesLIVE
08-07-2025
- TimesLIVE
Abandoning EU's 2035 zero-emission car target would risk one million jobs
Europe's car industry could return to producing 16.8-million cars a year, equalling its post-2008 crisis peak, if the EU maintains its 2035 clean cars target and implements policies to support the transition, a study published by campaign group Transport & Environment (T & E) showed on Tuesday. Conversely, deploying no industrial strategy and going back on the 2035 target that all new cars and vans sold in the EU no longer emit carbon dioxide could result in a loss of one million auto industry jobs and two-thirds of planned battery investments, T&E said. Challenged by high costs in their home markets and a gap to Chinese and US rivals in the electric vehicle industry, European carmakers face the effects of US President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on car imports, which have pushed many manufacturers to pull their forecasts for 2025. After heavy lobbying, the European Parliament gave its backing to softening some EU CO2 emissions targets for cars and vans in May, but it has so far stuck to regulations that will bar the sale of fossil-fuel cars by 2035. "It's a make or break moment for Europe's automotive industry as the global competition to lead the production of electric cars, batteries and chargers is immense," said Julia Poliscanova, senior director for vehicles and emobility supply chains at T&E. If the 2035 goal is maintained and policies to boost domestic EV production are implemented, the automotive value chain's contribution to the European economy would grow 11% by 2035, the advocacy group said. Job displacement in vehicle manufacturing could be offset by the creation of more than 100,000 jobs in battery making by 2030 and 120,000 in charging by 2035, it added.
