Daniel Batten Sets the Record Straight on Greenpeace ‘Smear Campaign’ Against Bitcoin

GreenpeaceUSA has released a controversial report that includes discrediting Bitcoin. The report alleges a concerning link between the fossil fuel industry, climate denial groups, and Bitcoin mining operations. It claims that Bitcoin lobbying groups are promoting legislation that allows Bitcoin miners to use resources unchecked and avoid responsibility for the impact on local communities.

Responding to the controversial report that holds numerous misrepresentations, Daniel Batten, Managing Partner at CH4 Capital and a respected voice on the environmental sustainability of Bitcoin, has challenged the assertions made by Greenpeace, pointing out several inaccuracies and providing a different perspective on the matter. He set the record straight on social media platform X. Here is where the Greenpeace report is so off-track, according to Batten.

Debunking Misinformation

Batten’s response to the Greenpeace report highlights what he perceives as fundamental flaws and misinformation. “GreenpeaceUSA seems to be stuck in a time warp, recycling outdated data without acknowledging the rapid advancements in Bitcoin’s sustainability,” Batten starts out. He then continues, “The only thing breaking is GreenpeaceUSA’s credibility,” indicating a strong disagreement with the report’s findings and methodology. Batten argues that the report relies on outdated data and fails to acknowledge the significant strides made towards using sustainable energy sources in Bitcoin mining. Citing a Bloomberg Intelligence report from September 2023, he notes that Bitcoin now uses 52.6% sustainable energy, challenging the notion that the majority of electricity for Bitcoin mining comes from fossil fuels.

Carbon Footprint and Water Use

Furthermore, Batten addresses the claims regarding Bitcoin’s carbon footprint and water usage, claims which three years ago had already strongly been debunked by Michael Saylor and Max Kaiser. He refutes the growth of Bitcoin’s carbon footprint with data analyzing emissions from 2019 to 2023, showing stability rather than increase. The criticism extends to the report’s claims about water consumption by Bitcoin mines, which Batten dismisses as based on non-peer-reviewed commentary. “Relying on flawed assumptions leads to flawed conclusions. The narrative of excessive water use by Bitcoin mines is based on such assumptions and lacks empirical support,” he asserts, pointing to research from Cambridge Judge Business School, which contradicts the report’s figures for water usage.

Energy Demand and Grid Strain

The Greenpeace report’s assertion that Bitcoin mining strains electrical grids and increases costs for ratepayers is also contested. Batten brings forth evidence from peer-reviewed research and statements by industry experts that suggest Bitcoin mining can actually benefit grid operators, reduce electricity costs, and promote the transition to renewable energy. He emphasizes the role of Bitcoin mining in making renewable operations more profitable and hastening the shift towards greener energy sources. “It’s not just about how much energy Bitcoin uses, but where that energy comes from. The shift towards renewable sources is a game-changer for the industry,” Batten says.

A Call for Accurate Information

Batten’s critique raises important questions about the narrative surrounding Bitcoin’s environmental impact. He mentions that other branches of Greenpeace and various environmental organizations have reconsidered their stance on Bitcoin after exploring more in-depth information. Batten urges GreenpeaceUSA to consider the growing body of evidence supporting Bitcoin’s potential positive environmental externalities, as recognized by several independent think tanks, institutes, and organizations.

In his concluding remarks, Batten cautions GreenpeaceUSA about the consequences of disseminating outdated or misleading information. He says, “It’s time for GreenpeaceUSA to engage with the latest research and join the efforts to explore how technologies like Bitcoin can contribute to a more sustainable future. Only through informed and constructive dialogue can we address the environmental challenges we face.”

It is understandable that a report that includes so many incorrect assumptions would spark debate and criticism. Well known and respected on chain analyst Willy Woo, was blunt in his response to the report and referring to a “$5M pay off to start a smear campaign, spreading “fear, uncertainty and doubt” on Bitcoin.