Greenpeace Report on Bitcoin’s Environmental Impact Debunked by Crypto Expert
An environmental lobby group, Greenpeace, recently released a report that aimed to discredit Bitcoin’s energy impact. However, a crypto environmental specialist has debunked many of the findings, highlighting questionable methodologies and outdated data used in the report.
Greenpeace Exposes Alleged Political Ties
According to Greenpeace’s report, Bitcoin mining lobbyists are affiliated with think tanks and anti-environment advocacy groups. The organization claims that the Chamber of Digital Commerce, which includes Bitcoin miners Marathon Digital and Core Scientific as members, authored a Congressional resolution to support Bitcoin mining. It also alleges that the Blockchain Association, representing Coinbase and others, lobbied against a bill requiring reporting of Bitcoin’s greenhouse gas emissions and electricity usage.
- Greenpeace links these advocacy groups with political power
- The Chamber of Digital Commerce is associated with former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney
- J. Christopher Giancarlo, a board member of the Chamber, previously worked at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Furthermore, Greenpeace claims that Kristin Smith, CEO of the Blockchain Association, and the Digital Chamber of Commerce have heavily invested in political lobbying. Smith reportedly contributed $50,000 to the campaign of pro-crypto Republican Tom Emmer. The Digital Chamber allegedly spent $230,000 on crypto regulation lobbying in 2023.
A Report Rife With Errors, Expert Says
KPMG, an auditing firm, has contested Greenpeace’s stance on Bitcoin’s climate effect in a separate report. KPMG argues that Bitcoin’s emissions are similar to electric vehicles and come from flared methane gas or the refiring of dormant generation facilities. The Greenidge Generation Holdings mining plant in New York is cited as an example.
- The Greenpeace report lacks scientific proof for claims of renewable energy usage
- It cites the Biden administration’s statistics on Bitcoin miners’ energy usage without addressing similar findings by cryptocurrency mining companies
Crypto environmental and sustainability goals forecaster Daniel Batten has pointed out inconsistencies in the Greenpeace report. For instance, the report uses outdated data that does not reflect current consumption patterns and makes inaccurate statements about Bitcoin straining the electrical grid.
“Bitcoin mining, far from straining electrical grids, has been shown in peer-reviewed research to help grid operators balance grids, prevent blackouts, and obviate the need for gas leaker plants,” said Batten.
Hot Take: Questionable Motives Behind the Report?
The timing of Greenpeace’s report raises questions about its motives. It conveniently arrived when the price of Bitcoin dropped by 18% in the past week, potentially discouraging investment for environmental reasons. This suggests that there may be ulterior motives behind the release of the report.
It’s important to critically evaluate reports like this and consider multiple perspectives before forming conclusions about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. While it’s crucial to address any negative consequences associated with cryptocurrency mining, it’s equally important to ensure that accurate information is used to inform discussions and decision-making processes.
Sources:
KPMG report,
Greenpeace report,
University of Cambridge,
Daniel Batten’s tweet
By
By
By