GreenpeaceUSA Continues Smear Campaign Against Bitcoin; Daniel Batten Stands Up

GreenpeaceUSA continues its smear campaign against Bitcoin mining, calling for accountability on Wall Street. Their new report criticizes the crypto mining industry, highlighting its excessive energy usage and environmental impact. Claims made incorrectly, as you will find out later on in this article.

GreenpeaceUSA’s Claims

The report claims Bitcoin mining is a major industry dominated by traditional financial companies operating large-scale, energy-intensive facilities. In 2023, Bitcoin mining consumed about 121 TWh of electricity, similar to the gold mining industry or a country like Poland. This led to significant carbon emissions, equating to the electricity use of a small city.

The report states, “Despite the guise of Bitcoin being independent from the mainstream financial system, the industry is deeply connected to traditional finance for Bitcoin mining companies to access capital and to enable trading and investing in Bitcoin.”

GreenpeaceUSA highlights the role of financial institutions in supporting Bitcoin mining. Banks, asset managers, insurers, and venture capital firms provide the capital needed for mining operations. The top five financiers of carbon pollution from Bitcoin mining in 2022 were Trinity Capital, Stone Ridge Holdings, BlackRock, Vanguard, and MassMutual. Together, they contributed to over 1.7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, comparable to the annual electricity use of 335,000 American homes.

Marathon Digital, Hut 8, Bitfarms, Riot Platforms, and Core Scientific, major Bitcoin mining companies, generated emissions equal to 11 gas-fired power plants. The report compares Bitcoin’s environmental impact to beef production and gasoline from crude oil, noting its worsening effect as the industry grows.

The report also states, “Energy-hungry miners are straining electrical grids across the U.S. and world…draining electricity when more is needed to power electrification of housing, transportation, and manufacturing to meet global climate targets.”

Role of Financial Institutions

According to GreenpeaceUSA, Wall Street and traditional financiers are more to blame for energy disparities than Bitcoin miners. They argue that institutions encourage miners to use more energy through tax breaks and bank benefits. The report asserts that miners rely on backing from banks and asset managers, with Wall Street seeking their share of the profits.

GreenpeaceUSA suggests financial institutions should be transparent about their environmental incentives to mitigate negative impacts. They call for Bitcoin miners to disclose their energy use and carbon emissions. Financial companies should also report on the emissions associated with their investments, loans, and services for Bitcoin mining companies.

The report recommends that Bitcoin miners pay a fair share for their electricity use, strain on grids, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and disruption to communities. They propose changing Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism to address the current energy-intensive proof-of-work model.

Daniel Batten’s Rebuttal

Daniel Batten, a renowned expert on Bitcoin’s environmental impact and managing partner at CH4 Capital, has once again countered GreenpeaceUSA’s claims made in the report. Here is a summary of what he has to say:

Claim: “Bitcoin is a carbon-intensive industry that should not be financed.”

Bitcoin mining is fully electrified with no direct emissions, similar to electric vehicles (eVs), Batten states Indirect emissions come from fossil-fuel-generated electricity. Bitcoin mining replaces more fossil-fuel-intensive alternatives and supports environmental sustainability through investments in renewable energy.

Claim: “Bitcoin mining companies are engaging in greenwash to defend themselves.”

GreenpeaceUSA alleges weakly peer-reviewed research, but this doesn’t disqualify its validity. Many independent reports and scientific publications support the positive environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining. GreenpeaceUSA’s opposition seems driven by confirmation bias and a strategy to shift public opinion.

Claim: “Neither financial companies nor Bitcoin mining companies are adequately disclosing carbon emissions.”

Bitcoin mining companies disclose hashrate, power consumption, and energy mix, enabling emissions calculations. This shows transparency in reporting emissions.

According to Batten, “GreenpeaceUSA are an increasingly lone voice, even within the environmental movement, and there are increasingly few people who treat their opinions about Bitcoin as credible any more.”