Greenpeace’s Bitcoin Mining Pollution Assertions Disputed by Expert

Pollution claims surrounding Bitcoin mining from Greenpeace have been rebutted by a fund manager focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) aspects. The manager claims that Bitcoin mining will, contrary to popular belief, actually have a positive impact on the environment.

In a recent report, Greenpeace targeted major financial services companies such as BlackRock, Fidelity, and JPMorgan, who support Bitcoin. Greenpeace urged these entities to disavow the alleged “climate destruction” caused by Bitcoin and to advocate for a protocol change that would render the mining industry unnecessary.

The report highlighted the companies’ lack of effective action to mitigate this issue, despite making commitments to climate and sustainability. “All of these companies have connections to Bitcoin and have failed to take meaningful action to solve the problem despite making climate and sustainability pledges,” Greenpeace stated.

However, David Batten, co-founder of CH4 Capital, firmly refutes Greenpeace’s perspective, instead suggesting that Bitcoin is a catalyst for environmental improvement. In his rebuttal to Greenpeace, he wrote, “There is a growing weight of evidence from those most qualified to make the assessment to suggest that Bitcoin mining helps build out the renewable grid.”

Batten criticizes Greenpeace for using misleading data to assert Bitcoin’s environmental harm, describing some of the information as incorrect. He mentioned that Greenpeace’s arguments are based more on “unsubstantiated fear” than empirical evidence and are laden with “emotive language.”

For instance, the Greenpeace report suggested that coal is the primary source of energy for the mining industry. Contrarily, Batten pointed out that among the known mining operations, 41 use sustainable power, with only a single operation still reliant on coal-related energy.

Additionally, Batten disputes Greenpeace’s claim that unchecked Bitcoin will accelerate “climate destruction”. He furnished data indicating that Bitcoin’s emissions are, in fact, decreasing over time.

In his rebuttal, Batten particularly raised the following on the energy usage of the Bitcoin network compared to society’s usage. He noted:

• Cambridge University, on their official website, has cautioned against comparing energy usage of industries to nations, labeling this methodology as “presenter bias.” It’s clear why: the very idea of comparing an industry’s consumption with a country’s is a textbook example of comparing apples and oranges.
• Various industries, such as video gaming, Netflix, traditional data centers, the banking sector, clothes dryers, and even Christmas lights, consume more energy than certain countries. Despite this, Bitcoin appears to be the only one persistently subjected to this kind of scrutiny. In reality, all the industries shown below have a greater energy consumption footprint than many countries.
• When it comes to actual energy consumption, Bitcoin uses less energy than each of the industries mentioned. Thus, if we must draw a comparison, it seems more logical to evaluate industry against industry. For instance, we could state that Bitcoin consumes less energy than Christmas lights.

Bitcoin’s alleged impact on the environment has been debunked numerous times, but this does not seem to make it past mainstream awareness. Michael Saylor and Max Kaiser, two Bitcoin advocates two years ago already defended Bitcoin’s carbon footprint in YouTube discussion. In September of last year, Saylor provided 7 reasons as to why the Bitcoin network is clean and the solution for greener future.