A new campaign berating the environmental impact of Bitcoin and its mining process has been unleashed by Greenpeace USA. However, things are not as clear-cut as the organization makes out, and experts are refuting the FUD.
On July 18. Greenpeace USA posted that they “took over the New York City skyline to expose BlackRock and JP Morgan Chase and their Bitcoin Bro CEOs for fueling Bitcoin’s climate destruction!”
Bitcoin Environmental Concerns
Greenpeace USA claimed that major banks, asset managers, and payment processors were “accelerating Bitcoin’s climate destruction.”
In a report on July 11, Greenpeace USA wrote that “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.”
Furthermore, it used the “Skull of Satoshi” as part of its marketing campaign to berate Bitcoin and those that support it.
The “Skull of Satoshi” was created by environmental art activist Benjamin Von Wong. He used it to promote sustainable art and optimism about Bitcoin mining using more green energy.
At the time of the artwork release, Greenpeace USA said it would use the effigy to urge Bitcoin to change its code.
Moreover, MIT researchers recently released a report stating that more study was needed for Bitcoin mining to avoid “greenwashing.”
Refuting the FUD
Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) analyst Daniel Batten commented on the irony saying, “The world has flipped.”
“An NGO uses big-budget marketing techniques funded by a corporate donor to spread propaganda against a grassroots movement called Bitcoin that is net positive to the environment,”
The “net positive” bit is debatable. The data regarding the full impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment is not clear.
In a formal rebuttal to Greenpeace USA, Batten 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.”
Greenpeace USA uses “unsubstantiated fear about ‘what might happen’ rather than evidence,” he said. Their report was “filled with emotive language without evidence such as the unsupported claim that Bitcoin is a ‘climate catastrophe.’”
In March, Batten charted Bitcoin mining energy emissions. He showed that they had declined considerably as miners continue to switch to renewable energy sources.
Furthermore, in April, it was reported that Bitcoin mining emissions intensity had dropped to its lowest-ever level.
According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, the network consumes 138 TWh annually. By comparison, transmission and distribution losses in the United States alone are 206 TWh annually.
So maybe GreenpeaceUSA should look closer to home before attacking a global decentralized financial network that consumes less power than fridges and TVs in America.
