GreenpeaceUSA Accuses Bitcoin Mining Industry of Environmental Harms and Collusion with Fossil Fuel Industry
GreenpeaceUSA has released a scathing report exposing what it claims are the “deep ties” between the Bitcoin mining industry and the fossil fuel industry. The non-profit organization alleges that these ties hinder efforts to address the climate crisis. According to GreenpeaceUSA, there is significant overlap between groups promoting Bitcoin mining and funding from the Koch Brothers, as well as a revolving door between the Bitcoin mining industry and the Trump administration.
The report argues that Bitcoin mining helps keep coal and gas plants running, thereby providing a lifeline for fossil fuels. It also challenges the industry’s claims that Bitcoin mining promotes renewable energy buildout, reduces methane emissions, and stabilizes electrical grids. GreenpeaceUSA asserts that the majority of electricity used for Bitcoin mining comes from oil, coal, and gas, straining electrical grids and increasing costs for ratepayers without significantly contributing to renewable energy expansion.
Bitcoin Community Disputes GreenpeaceUSA’s Claims
Bitcoin advocates quickly responded to GreenpeaceUSA’s report, accusing the organization of spreading misinformation about Bitcoin’s energy usage. They argue that numerous legitimate studies have documented the benefits of Bitcoin mining and refute GreenpeaceUSA’s pessimistic claims as outdated and debunked.
Pierre Rochard, VP of Communications at Riot Platforms, asserts that Bitcoin miners who don’t use renewable energy simply go out of business. He states that power generation emissions are already regulated, renewable generation is rapidly growing in the United States, and bitcoin mining itself produces zero emissions.
Isaac Holyoak, Chief Communications Officer of CleanSpark, claims that his firm powers its mining sites using 81% carbon-free energy. He emphasizes that renewable sources are cheaper for businesses than coal. Holyoak also points out that CleanSpark has invested millions of dollars in Georgia’s energy infrastructure, including substation improvements and power lines, to support its mining operations.
Bitcoin proponents argue that the industry helps stabilize electrical grids by flexibly scaling operations based on demand. They claim that Bitcoin data centers can be turned off during peak hours and turned on during off-peak hours, which allows for the monetization of stranded renewable energy sources that would otherwise go to waste.
Questioning GreenpeaceUSA’s Motives
Critics of GreenpeaceUSA express skepticism about the organization’s anti-Bitcoin mining arguments. They point out that other environmental organizations have changed their stance on Bitcoin after taking the time to learn more about it.
Yan Pritzker, co-founder of Swan, highlights GreenpeaceUSA’s connections to Chris Larsen of Ripple, suggesting that the organization is not independent or impartial. In 2022, Larsen-backed GreenpeaceUSA and the Environmental Working Group launched a $5 million campaign to change Bitcoin’s code and reduce its energy consumption.
It is worth noting that Greenpeace’s global operations may not fully support GreenpeaceUSA’s anti-Bitcoin campaign. According to Daniel Batten, co-founder of CH4 Capital and former Greenpeace activist, other branches of Greenpeace have raised concerns about GreenpeaceUSA’s tactics and the reliability of its information sources.
Conclusion: The Debate Continues
The clash between GreenpeaceUSA and the Bitcoin mining industry highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining. While GreenpeaceUSA accuses the industry of colluding with fossil fuel interests and hindering renewable energy expansion, Bitcoin advocates argue that mining operations are increasingly powered by sustainable sources and contribute to stabilizing electrical grids.
As the discussion continues, it is crucial to consider updated and reliable data when evaluating the environmental implications of Bitcoin mining. With the industry evolving rapidly, ongoing research and analysis are necessary to understand the true impact of cryptocurrency on the environment.
By
By
By
By
By