Bitcoin Mining Is Big in China. Why Investors Should Worry.
Why the digital currency’s dependence on China, specifically Xinjiang, is concerning.
3 min
Critics of the nearly ubiquitous digital currency Bitcoin often focus on its environmental consequences. After Tesla announced recently that it had bought roughly US$1.5 billion in Bitcoin, sending the cryptocurrency’s value skyrocketing, sustainability investors decried the “level of carbon dioxide emissions generated from Bitcoin mining.” Certainly, “mining”—the energy-intensive process by which computers solve complex algorithmic problems to verify blockchain transactions, for which they’re rewarded in digital currency—is an undeniable environmental offender.
But there is another worrying aspect of Bitcoin, one that should make investors think twice about including it as part of an ethical investing strategy.
A large amount of new Bitcoin comes from Xinjiang, the region in northwest China where more than a million Uighur Muslims and other minorities have been imprisoned in concentration camps. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, as of April 2020, China was responsible for 65% of all Bitcoin mining. And of that, 36% takes place in Xinjiang, the largest regional component. Why? Cheap coal means cheap energy to power the machines that mine Bitcoin. Xinjiang has an abundant supply of coal, and the region’s relative remoteness means that it’s far cheaper to use the resource locally than move it to other parts of China. The issue is not that the Chinese government uses forced labour in Xinjiang coal mines—the reporting on that is inconclusive. Rather, because of the atrocities occurring in Xinjiang, any product produced there brings with it high ethical and regulatory risk.
In the camps—which Beijing calls “vocational educational and training centres”—guards try to “deradicalise” Uighurs for crimes such as wearing long dresses, abstaining from pork or alcohol, or praying. While the difficulty of reporting in the region means that concrete evidence is scarce, camp survivors have described systemic torture, forced sterilization, and rape. (Beijing denies committing atrocities.) In January, right before leaving office, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that Beijing was committing “genocide” in the region. His successor, Antony Blinken, agrees.
To summarize: Roughly 20% of new Bitcoin is mined in Xinjiang, the site of some of the world’s most egregious human-rights abuses.
Today, Bitcoin’s association with Xinjiang is barely discussed. But that may change. For public-facing funds considering investing in the notoriously volatile asset, there are two other risks to consider. The first is that because of the concern among the American public about human-rights abuses in Xinjiang, holding assets tied to the region comes at the risk of a public relations disaster.
Already, activists have criticised Olympic sponsors for participating in the “genocide Olympics”—the 2022 Beijing Winter Games. Multiyear campaigns to hive Xinjiang off from the global supply chain are already well under way.
In July, more than 190 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, called for clothing brands to end all sourcing from Xinjiang within the next 12 months. (In 2020, roughly 20% of the world’s cotton came from Xinjiang.) It’s not hard to imagine Bitcoin becoming another frontier in their campaigns.
Investors should be alert for regulatory action. Bitcoin’s Xinjiang relationship gives ammunition to those in the U.S. government who may want to further monitor or restrict the transactions. Analysts expect the Biden administration to pay close attention to Bitcoin. In mid-February, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen criticised the “misuse” of cryptocurrencies in laundering money or funding terrorism. At the same time, Bitcoin’s Xinjiang connection could put it on the radar of the various arms of the Commerce, State, and Defense departments that are seeking to reduce U.S. dependence on physical and digital Chinese goods. If this trend intensifies, the Treasury Department could sanction the Bitcoin mining firms that have large operations in Xinjiang, or issue advisories that it is “studying” Bitcoin’s links to the region—signalling to global financial institutions another risk of holding the cryptocurrency.
In January, U.S. Customs banned the imports of Xinjiang cotton and tomato products and told U.S. companies to get forced labour out of their supply chains. Extricating Bitcoin from Xinjiang could be far more difficult. Unlike, say, blood diamonds or Iranian crude oil, Bitcoins exist only digitally. While there is a public record of the billions of Bitcoin transactions, it’s exceedingly complicated to determine the geographic origin of a particular Bitcoin. That means all Bitcoin holders can deny any connection to human-rights abuses—but also risk being tarnished by the association.
It has long been ironic that Bitcoin, developed to decentralize power, is so dependent on China, a country ruled by a government obsessed with centralizing it. But depending on China is one thing. Depending on Xinjiang is another. There are many excellent ethical and regulatory reasons not to buy Bitcoin. Add Xinjiang to that list.
Isaac Stone Fish is the CEO and founder of Strategy Risks, a firm that quantifies corporate exposure to China.>
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Food prices continue to rise at a rapid pace, surprising central banks and pressuring debt-laden governments
4 min
LONDON—Fresh out of an energy crisis, Europeans are facing a food-price explosion that is changing diets and forcing consumers across the region to tighten their belts—literally.
This is happening even though inflation as a whole is falling thanks to lower energy prices, presenting a new policy challenge for governments that deployed billions in aid last year to keep businesses and households afloat through the worst energy crisis in decades.
New data on Wednesday showed inflation in the U.K. fell sharply in April as energy prices cooled, following a similar pattern around Europe and in the U.S. But food prices were 19.3% higher than a year earlier.
The continued surge in food prices has caught central bankers off guard and pressured governments that are still reeling from the cost of last year’s emergency support to come to the rescue. And it is pressuring household budgets that are also under strain from rising borrowing costs.
In France, households have cut their food purchases by more than 10% since the invasion of Ukraine, while their purchases of energy have fallen by 4.8%.
In Germany, sales of food fell 1.1% in March from the previous month, and were down 10.3% from a year earlier, the largest drop since records began in 1994. According to the Federal Information Centre for Agriculture, meat consumption was lower in 2022 than at any time since records began in 1989, although it said that might partly reflect a continuing shift toward more plant-based diets.
Food retailers’ profit margins have contracted because they can’t pass on the entire price increases from their suppliers to their customers. Markus Mosa, chief executive of the Edeka supermarket chain, told German media that the company had stopped ordering products from several large suppliers because of rocketing prices.
A survey by the U.K.’s statistics agency earlier this month found that almost three-fifths of the poorest 20% of households were cutting back on food purchases.
“This is an access problem,” said Ludovic Subran, chief economist at insurer Allianz, who previously worked at the United Nations World Food Program. “Total food production has not plummeted. This is an entitlement crisis.”
Food accounts for a much larger share of consumer spending than energy, so a smaller rise in prices has a greater impact on budgets. The U.K.’s Resolution Foundation estimates that by the summer, the cumulative rise in food bills since 2020 will have amounted to 28 billion pounds, equivalent to $34.76 billion, outstripping the rise in energy bills, estimated at £25 billion.
“The cost of living crisis isn’t ending, it is just entering a new phase,” Torsten Bell, the research group’s chief executive, wrote in a recent report.
Food isn’t the only driver of inflation. In the U.K., the core rate of inflation—which excludes food and energy—rose to 6.8% in April from 6.2% in March, its highest level since 1992. Core inflation was close to its record high in the eurozone during the same month.
Still, Bank of England Gov. Andrew Bailey told lawmakers Tuesday that food prices now constitute a “fourth shock” to inflation after the bottlenecks that jammed supply chains during the Covid-19 pandemic, the rise in energy prices that accompanied Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and surprisingly tight labor markets.
Europe’s governments spent heavily on supporting households as energy prices soared. Now they have less room to borrow given the surge in debt since the pandemic struck in 2020.
Some governments—including those of Italy, Spain and Portugal—have cut sales taxes on food products to ease the burden on consumers. Others are leaning on food retailers to keep their prices in check. In March, the French government negotiated an agreement with leading retailers to refrain from price rises if it is possible to do so.
Retailers have also come under scrutiny in Ireland and a number of other European countries. In the U.K., lawmakers have launched an investigation into the entire food supply chain “from farm to fork.”
“Yesterday I had the food producers into Downing Street, and we’ve also been talking to the supermarkets, to the farmers, looking at every element of the supply chain and what we can do to pass on some of the reduction in costs that are coming through to consumers as fast as possible,” U.K. Treasury Chief Jeremy Hunt said during The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit in London.
The government’s Competition and Markets Authority last week said it would take a closer look at retailers.
“Given ongoing concerns about high prices, we are stepping up our work in the grocery sector to help ensure competition is working well,” said Sarah Cardell, who heads the CMA.
Some economists expect that added scrutiny to yield concrete results, assuming retailers won’t want to tarnish their image and will lean on their suppliers to keep prices down.
“With supermarkets now more heavily under the political spotlight, we think it more likely that price momentum in the food basket slows,” said Sanjay Raja, an economist at Deutsche Bank.
It isn’t entirely clear why food prices have risen so fast for so long. In world commodity markets, which set the prices received by farmers, food prices have been falling since April 2022. But raw commodity costs are just one part of the final price. Consumers are also paying for processing, packaging, transport and distribution, and the size of the gap between the farm and the dining table is unusually wide.
The BOE’s Bailey thinks one reason for the bank having misjudged food prices is that food producers entered into longer-term but relatively expensive contracts with fertilizer, energy and other suppliers around the time of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in their eagerness to guarantee availability at a time of uncertainty.
But as the pressures being placed on retailers suggest, some policy makers suspect that an increase in profit margins may also have played a role. Speaking to lawmakers, Bailey was wary of placing any blame on food suppliers.
“It’s a story about rebuilding margins that were squeezed in the early part of last year,” he said.
The Victorian capital’s top-grossing transactions.
Interior designer Thomas Hamel on where it goes wrong in so many homes.
