Over the past three years, the dams of Chelan County, Washington, its watershed and fish, the electrical grid and the laborers who maintain it, and cleared land with warehouses filled with computers, have all been enrolled as part of the decentralized digital infrastructure of Bitcoin. While popular accounts of the Bitcoin network correctly report the massive scale of energy it consumes and its potential environmental ramifications, in practice, the material geographies of Bitcoin are highly uneven and intertwined with specific infrastructural, ecological, and economic systems. In this article, we examine Bitcoin's impacts on Chelan County, untangling the processes that occur as the distributed, digital infrastructure consumes the very real material resources of one place to produce digital goods used in another. In so doing, we examine not only the material costs of networks like Bitcoin, but also their historical ties to older processes of accumulation.
Billington DP and Jackson DC (2017) Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
7.
BirkenholtzT (2013) “On the network, off the map”: Developing intervillage and intragender differentiation in rural water supply. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space31(2): 354–371.
8.
Blaikie P (2016) [1985] The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
9.
Brooks KB (2009) Public Power, Private Dams: The Hells Canyon High Dam Controversy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
10.
Buchanan WJ (ed) (2004) Public-key Encryption. In: The Handbook of Data Communications and Networks. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 1247–1279.
Castree N and Braun B (2001) Social Nature Theory, Practice, and Politics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
16.
Chaum D (1983) Blind signatures for untraceable payments. In: Chaum D, Rivest RL and Sherman AT (eds) Advances in Cryptology. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 199–203.
CorwinJE (2018) “Nothing is useless in nature”: Delhi's repair economies and value-creation in an electronics “waste” sector. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space50(1): 14–30.
21.
CosensBAWilliamsMK (2012) Resilience and water governance: Adaptive governance in the Columbia River basin. Ecology and Society17(4): 3.
Freidberg S (2009) Fresh: A Perishable History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Gabrys J (2016) Program Earth: Environmental Sensing Technology and the Making of a Computational Planet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
30.
GidwaniVReddyRN (2011) The afterlives of “waste”: Notes from India for a minor history of capitalist surplus. Antipode43(5): 1625–1658.
LangleyPLeyshonA (2017) Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society3(1): 11–31.
47.
LaveR (2012) Bridging political ecology and STS: A field analysis of the Rosgen Wars. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102(2): 366–382.
48.
LaveRWilsonMWBarronES, et al.(2014) Intervention: Critical physical geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien58(1): 1–10.
49.
Leighninger Jr. RD (2007) Long-Range Public Investment: The Forgotten Legacy of the New Deal. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Magilligan FJ, Sneddon CS and Fox CA (2017) The era of big dam building. In: Ashcraft C and Meyers T (eds) The Politics of Fresh Water: Access, Conflict, Identity. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 78–97.
52.
MahmoudiDLevendaAM (2016) Beyond the screen: Uneven geographies, digital labour, and the city of cognitive-cultural capitalism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society14(1): 99–120.
Mattern S (2017) Code and Clay, Data and Dirt: Five Thousand Years of Urban Media. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
56.
MaurerBNelmsTCSwartzL (2013) ‘When perhaps the real problem is money itself!’ The practical materiality of bitcoin. Social semiotics23(2): 261–277.
57.
McCarthy J and Thatcher J (2017) Visualizing new political ecologies: A critical data studies analysis of the World Bank's renewable energy resource mapping initiative. Geoforum Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718517300726 (accessed 5 December 2018).
58.
McCully P (1996) Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. London, UK: Zed Books.
PickrenG (2014) Political ecologies of electronic waste: Uncertainty and legitimacy in the governance of e-waste geographies. Environment and Planning A46(1): 26–45.
RibotJC (1998) Theorizing access: Forest profits along Senegal's charcoal commodity chain. Development and Change29(2): 307–341.
73.
RobbinsP (2001) Fixed categories in a portable landscape: The causes and consequences of land-cover categorization. Environment and Planning A33(1): 161–179.
74.
Robbins P (2012) Political Ecology, Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
RobertsonMM (2006) The nature that capital can see: Science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(3): 367–387.
80.
RocheleauDE (2008) Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum39(2): 716–727.
Smith N (2010) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
86.
Srnicek N (2017) Platform Capitalism. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
87.
StarSL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist43(3): 377–391.
88.
StarSLRuhlederK (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research7(1): 111–134.
Taylor MB (2013) Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, pp. 1–10, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 29 September – 4 October 2013. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2555729.
91.
ThatcherJO'SullivanDMahmoudiD (2016) Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data. Environment and Planning D34(6): 990–1006.
92.
ThriftNFrenchS (2002) The automatic production of space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers27(3): 309–335.
93.
TurnerMD (2003) Methodological reflections on the use of remote sensing and geographic information science in human ecological research. Human Ecology31(2): 255–279.
VogelE (2011) Defining one Pacific Northwest among many possibilities: The political construction of a region and its river during the New Deal. Western Historical Quarterly42(1): 28–53.
96.
Vogel E (2017). River Basin Governance and river management. In: Ashcraft C and Meyers T (eds) The Politics of Fresh Water: Access, Conflict, Identity. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 41–58.
97.
von Mises L (1953) The Theory of Money and Credit. Yale University Press.
Walker RA and Brechin G (2010) The Living New Deal: The Unsung Benefits of the New Deal for the United States and California, Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6c1115sm.
100.
White R (1995) The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
