Key Takeaways
- Greenpeace's report on Bitcoin's environmental impact faces expert criticism for inaccuracies.
- The report alleges political connections between crypto lobbyists and influential figures.
- Experts argue that the report uses outdated data and misunderstands Bitcoin's impact on electrical grids.
Greenpeace’s recent publication criticizes Bitcoin’s energy usage, alleging ties between Bitcoin lobbyists and political influencers.
The report targets groups like the Blockchain Association and the Chamber of Digital Commerce, claiming they push for Bitcoin-friendly policies.
Political connections and lobbying efforts
The report highlights connections between Bitcoin advocacy groups and political figures.
It mentions Perianne Boring of the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Kristin Smith of the Blockchain Association, emphasizing their involvement in political lobbying and campaign contributions.
Expert challenges report’s accuracy
Crypto environmentalist Daniel Batten criticizes the report’s inaccuracies.
He argues that Bitcoin mining can actually support electrical grids and that the report uses outdated data.
Additionally, he suggests the report’s timing may be aimed at deterring investment in Bitcoin due to recent price drops.
One of the features of GreenpeaceUSA reports is that they are very easy to debunk. You rarely make it past the first paragraph without reading a large swathe of misinformation… Bitcoin mining far from straining electrical grids have been shown in peer reviewed research to help grid operators balance grids, prevent blackouts and obviate the need for gas leaker plants.
You can read Batten’s entire response to Greenpeace here.
KPMG has also contested Greenpeace’s clainms.
