Greenpeace USA criticizes Bitcoin because of its environmental impact - but experts disagree

Greenpeace USA criticizes Bitcoin because of its environmental impact - but experts disagree

Greenpeace USA recently criticized Bitcoin for its environmental impact, but experts disagree with this claim. The organization claimed that major banks and payment processors were contributing to climate destruction through Bitcoin. But is it really that clear?

On July 18, Greenpeace USA announced that they had “used the New York skyline to criticize BlackRock, JP Morgan Chase and their Bitcoin-crazy CEOs for Bitcoin’s climate impact.” The organization claimed that these banks have ties to Bitcoin despite making sustainability promises. As part of their campaign, they used the “Skull of Satoshi” image to condemn Bitcoin. This artwork, by environmental artist Benjamin Von Wong, was created for sustainable art and optimism about greener Bitcoin mining methods. This art project is celebrated in the Bitcoin community.

Greenpeace USA wants to intensify its campaign against the Proof-of-Work consensus process with the “Skull of Satoshi”. However, a recent report from MIT suggests that further studies are needed to avoid greenwashing in Bitcoin mining.

ESG analyst Daniel Batten pointed out the irony of Greenpeace's statements. He claims that Bitcoin is overall positive for the environment, despite Greenpeace USA claiming the opposite. According to Batten, there is increasing evidence that Bitcoin mining promotes the expansion of renewable energy. He refutes Greenpeace USA's claims and emphasizes that the organization relies on unfounded fears rather than concrete evidence. In fact, the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining has decreased as miners increasingly switch to renewable energy.

To illustrate this, one should compare the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network with the electricity consumption in the USA. While the Bitcoin network uses 138 TWh annually, in the USA 206 TWh is wasted through electricity losses alone. This shows that the Bitcoin network uses less electricity than American refrigerators and televisions.

So it seems that Greenpeace USA's claims regarding Bitcoin's climate impact are not as clear-cut as they make them out to be. It is always important to have concrete evidence before attacking a global financial network. Experts believe that Bitcoin can have an overall positive impact on the environment by promoting the expansion of renewable energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.