A new report published by Greenpeace triggers reactions from the Bitcoin community: debunking criticisms.
On March 19, through a tweet, Greenpeace USA released a new report against Bitcoin mining. The paper, the organization writes on its profile X, highlights “the links between the fossil fuel industry, climate change deniers, and the growing network of lobbyists promoting campaigns and policies to save coal-fired power plants and gas facilities”.
The document cites a study by Alex De Vries of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, a well-known Bitcoin critic and employee of the Dutch central bank.
A few hours after the publication, Greenpeace’s tweet was marked by the community notes of X:
“The article contains many factual errors, such as the flawed energy per transaction count and outdated and inaccurate information, such as the proportion of fossil fuels used as an energy source. Nowadays, the majority of the energy used for Bitcoin mining is renewable.”
In the community notes, links are provided to two other sources: an article by Daniel Batten, environmentalist and CEO of CH4 Capital, and a report by KPMG where the role of Bitcoin in the ESG world is explored in depth.
In addition to the paper, Greenpeace also shared a schema connecting entities and individuals in the Bitcoin industry, politicians, far-right supporters, corporate interest groups, and climate change deniers.
According to Greenpeace, the groups mentioned above would be trying to lobby to promote mining and facilitate the progress of the Bitcoin industry, as well as spread misinformation about the climate, support the fossil fuel industry, exploit resources like electricity and water, and promote dangerous environmental policies at the state level.
Debunking the criticisms
Among the many responses to Greenpeace’s paper, that of Daniel Batten’s cannot be missed.
The criticised theses of the report are:
- The majority of the electricity for mining comes from oil, coal and gas;
- The environmental impact of Bitcoin has only increased over time;
- Miners consume large and increasing amounts of water to generate the necessary electricity and cool the equipment;
- The increase in demand for electricity from miners is putting pressure on electric networks and increasing costs for consumers, without any initiative for the expansion of renewable energies.
Responding to the first criticism is quite simple: the source taken by Greenpeace relies on a series of very old data, which no longer accurately describes the state of the Bitcoin network.
It is now widely recognized that mining predominantly uses sustainable energy. According to several studies, today the sector uses more than 50% of green sources, positioning itself as the industry with the greenest energy mix globally.
The second criticism is also easily refutable. Batten states that the environmental impact of Bitcoin has not grown over the past four years, in fact, it has decreased.
According to Batten, it is plausible that Bitcoin will become carbon negative within a few years, therefore contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Such a result would be achieved through the use of waste methane from landfills and oil extraction facilities in mining activities. We are already seeing this transformation in part today, with some companies exploiting phenomena known as gas flaring and gas venting for Bitcoin mining.
The third criticism relies on the non-peer reviewed paper by Alex De Vries, in which it is claimed that each transaction consumes the water equivalent of a garden pool.
De Vries’s creative calculations and his method have been refuted by peer-reviewed studies from the Cambridge Judge Business School.
With the last criticism, Greenpeace manages to combine three false claims into one sentence.
Firstly, Bitcoin mining is far from putting pressure on electric networks. On the contrary, as has already been demonstrated by various studies, mining can help network operators stabilize networks and prevent blackouts.
Furthermore, as stated by Brad Jones, former CEO of ERCOT, mining can help lower the cost of electricity for all citizens, making demand-response services more competitive and setting a base price for electricity.
Finally, a peer-reviewed study from Cornell University found that mining can make the development of renewable energy solutions more profitable and accelerate the green transition. According to the study, wind and solar energy projects can benefit from mining during their pre-commercial development stages. The establishment of mining facilities could reduce environmental impact and generate revenues to invest in future renewable energy projects.
