1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,000
Greetings and salutations my fellow plebs. My name is Walker and this is the

2
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:13,200
Bitcoin Podcast. It's Monday July 17th 2023. At the time of recording the Bitcoin

3
00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:21,760
block height is 799-099 and the value of one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin.

4
00:00:21,760 --> 00:00:27,680
Today's episode is Bitcoin Out Loud where I read you a Bitcoin or Bitcoin

5
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:33,600
adjacent piece. Today's piece addresses one of the biggest misconceptions about

6
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:39,920
Bitcoin pushed by certain members of the media, altcoin promoters, corrupt NGOs,

7
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:46,720
and generally uninformed politicians and celebrities. Bitcoin is bad for the

8
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:53,600
environment. A little context for today's read.

9
00:00:53,600 --> 00:00:58,960
About a week ago Greenpeace tweeted,

10
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:04,800
new GPUSA report, Bitcoin climate destruction is powered by the same old

11
00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:09,280
traditional finance institutions. Today's report shows how BlackRock,

12
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:14,160
Chase, and others are failing their climate pledges and stopping our progress

13
00:01:14,160 --> 00:01:20,720
on climate goals. With a link to a report called, Investing in Bitcoin's Climate

14
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:26,240
Pollution. So for those who may be unfamiliar with Greenpeace's record on

15
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:32,400
Bitcoin propaganda, here's a very brief summary. Greenpeace USA was paid $5

16
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:37,120
million by Ripple co-founder and executive chairman Chris Larson to start an

17
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:41,440
anti-Bitcoin propaganda campaign with the goal of getting Bitcoin to

18
00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:47,200
hashtag change the code from proof of work to proof of stake. A move which would

19
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:51,520
make Bitcoin almost as worthless as centralized proof of stake tokens like

20
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:56,000
Ethereum. Since receiving this $5 million in Ripple

21
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:59,920
lobbying money, Greenpeace has been publishing all sorts of poorly

22
00:01:59,920 --> 00:02:05,440
researched claims, attack ads, junk science, and outright propaganda about

23
00:02:05,440 --> 00:02:10,000
Bitcoin. Additionally, because Bitcoin is open source

24
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:14,000
technology, anyone can copy Bitcoin's code and create a new

25
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:18,320
version that is proof of stake. Nothing is stopping Greenpeace from doing this.

26
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:23,840
And in fact, just such a POS copy of Bitcoin already exists. And the reason

27
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:28,000
you probably haven't heard of it is because nobody wants a Bitcoin knockoff

28
00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:33,040
that gets rid of one of the core pieces of what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin.

29
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:37,040
Using real-world energy in Bitcoin's proof of work mechanism

30
00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:42,320
is crucial as it creates tangible costs to malicious activities,

31
00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:46,560
thus providing a strong economic deterrent against attacks on the network

32
00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:51,200
and ensuring the security and integrity of Bitcoin.

33
00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:55,040
Okay, so now you're pretty much caught up.

34
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:58,960
Yesterday, Daniel Batten responded to Greenpeace's tweet,

35
00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:03,760
saying simply, rebutted, with a screenshot of his conclusions

36
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:09,040
and a link to his full rebuttal. Daniel Batten is a climate activist and

37
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:14,240
climate tech investor turned Bitcoiner, who is still a climate activist

38
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:19,120
because, and I know this might melt some brains out in the Greenpeace world,

39
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:23,040
Bitcoin is a net benefit for the environment.

40
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:27,520
I highly recommend following Daniel on Twitter. You can find him at

41
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:35,520
dsbatten.com. That's DS Batten. So today, I'm going to read

42
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:42,880
Daniel's entire piece titled, Rebuttal of Greenpeace USA Report on Bitcoin.

43
00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:46,720
Daniel links to a bunch of resources within the report, so if you want to

44
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:50,640
follow along and check the sources as I read or see some of the graphics,

45
00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:59,040
you can find a link in the show notes. So, without further ado, let's get into it.

46
00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:06,640
Rebuttal of Greenpeace USA Report on Bitcoin by Daniel Batten.

47
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:12,160
How to use this article. Since the original Greenpeace USA article uses

48
00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:15,200
many of the arguments that are traditionally used by opponents of

49
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,360
Bitcoin to argue that it is a net environmental negative,

50
00:04:19,360 --> 00:04:23,120
this article serves as a useful counterpoint to share with any

51
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:27,120
environmentally conscious person who may have encountered negative

52
00:04:27,120 --> 00:04:31,760
environmental messaging around Bitcoin and is curious enough to seek

53
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:37,120
context before forming their own viewpoint. Context.

54
00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:43,200
In July 2023, Greenpeace USA published a report infesting in Bitcoin's climate

55
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:47,040
pollution. My Rebuttal argues that the report

56
00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:51,680
recycles many already widely debunked claims about Bitcoin,

57
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:54,640
uses unsubstantiated fear about quote,

58
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:59,200
what might happen rather than evidence to influence readers,

59
00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:03,200
and repeatedly avoids important contextualizing information

60
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,320
in order to present a skewed and in many cases

61
00:05:06,320 --> 00:05:12,400
false appraisal of Bitcoin. Original Greenpeace USA report is linked here in

62
00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:18,400
Daniel's piece. In my reply, I have adopted the approach,

63
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:25,520
one, provide independent data and evidence for all claims. Two, avoid image

64
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:30,880
neuro associations, name calling, and other covert persuasion techniques.

65
00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:35,040
Three, profile important contextualizing information

66
00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:40,480
wherever possible so that readers have informed perspective.

67
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:46,560
Highly Emotive Unsubstantiated Claim in the Report Framing Page.

68
00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:50,640
Most people will not have the time to read the article, so will instead rely on

69
00:05:50,640 --> 00:05:54,560
their framing page with the link to the full article.

70
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:59,040
The framing for the article is filled with emotive language without evidence,

71
00:05:59,040 --> 00:06:02,640
such as the unsupported claim that Bitcoin is a quote,

72
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:08,080
climate catastrophe. The problem with Greenpeace USA's framing of

73
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:14,000
Bitcoin is evident in the first sentence, where two claims are made.

74
00:06:14,000 --> 00:06:17,760
Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as entire countries,

75
00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:23,360
and 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining globally in 2022

76
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:28,800
came from fossil fuels. The first claim is true, but misleading.

77
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:34,320
The second claim is false. These claims are repeated verbatim in the

78
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:38,400
main report, so let's examine each claim.

79
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:46,400
Claim. Bitcoin consumes as much energy as entire countries.

80
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:50,880
This has been a familiar catch-cry of Bitcoin antagonists, perhaps because it's

81
00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:54,800
one of the few claims against Bitcoin that is factually correct.

82
00:06:54,800 --> 00:07:00,400
However, it is also a misleading claim. Let's examine why.

83
00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:06,160
Firstly, Cambridge University on their site discouraged such comparisons between

84
00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:11,200
industries and nations, because they can make an industry look worse than it in

85
00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:16,160
fact is. They call this technique presenter bias.

86
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:21,200
It's easy to see why. Comparing an industry to a nation is by definition

87
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:27,280
an apples-to-oranges comparison. Secondly, it is also true that any number

88
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:30,880
of industries use more energy than a single country.

89
00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:36,560
The same is true for example of video gaming, Netflix, traditional data centers,

90
00:07:36,560 --> 00:07:41,520
the banking industry, clothes dryers, and Christmas lights.

91
00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:45,520
Yet it is only Bitcoin that is singled out in this way.

92
00:07:45,520 --> 00:07:53,520
In fact, every industry in this chart below uses more energy than entire countries.

93
00:07:53,520 --> 00:08:00,800
Thirdly, Bitcoin actually uses less energy than each of the industries listed below.

94
00:08:00,800 --> 00:08:05,680
So if we're going to make a comparison, why not compare industry to industry

95
00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:11,440
by saying Bitcoin uses less energy than Christmas lights?

96
00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:16,800
As a quick aside, in the chart below you'll see Bitcoin, gold mining, and jewelry,

97
00:08:16,800 --> 00:08:21,680
air transport, sea transport, land transport, health care, finance,

98
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:26,480
and insurance, construction, military industrial complex, and the building center,

99
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:30,640
all of which use more energy than Bitcoin.

100
00:08:30,640 --> 00:08:36,320
If Bitcoin truly were causing climate catastrophe, then why is Greenpeace USA

101
00:08:36,320 --> 00:08:41,120
not also targeting those other industries and lobbying investors and companies

102
00:08:41,120 --> 00:08:45,520
to curtail their use of, for example, video gaming?

103
00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:49,200
There is a complete cognitive dissonance between the claim of

104
00:08:49,200 --> 00:08:53,920
Greenpeace USA and the actions of the organization.

105
00:08:53,920 --> 00:08:58,480
Either they are making a hyperbolic claim, or they are failing to be a good

106
00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:03,920
environmental watchdog by turning a blind eye to the numerous industries that,

107
00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:09,520
by their own logic, must be climate mega catastrophes.

108
00:09:09,520 --> 00:09:12,960
Let's look at the second claim.

109
00:09:12,960 --> 00:09:20,640
Claim 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining globally in 2022

110
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:23,840
came from fossil fuels.

111
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:26,240
This claim is untrue.

112
00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:31,680
The truth is, quote, a 2022 study from Cambridge University,

113
00:09:31,680 --> 00:09:35,760
which by Cambridge's own admission contained less than half of miners,

114
00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:39,840
may not be representative and did not include mining activities

115
00:09:39,840 --> 00:09:45,760
that could be, quote, reasonably expected to improve the sustainable energy mix of Bitcoin,

116
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:52,800
claimed that 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining came from fossil fuels.

117
00:09:52,800 --> 00:09:59,200
The omissions in the CCAF study have since been addressed in my more recent 2023 study,

118
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:03,360
which showed that when off-grid mining, flare gas mining,

119
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:07,760
and the geographic migration of miners since January 2020,

120
00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:14,960
is taken into account, 52.6% of Bitcoin mining globally in 2023

121
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:20,080
came from sustainable energy sources.

122
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:23,920
Cambridge's report cited by Greenpeace, by contrast,

123
00:10:23,920 --> 00:10:30,400
did not factor in some of the most important factors in calculating Bitcoin energy mix.

124
00:10:30,400 --> 00:10:35,600
Our estimates do not account for any activities that could reasonably be expected to reduce

125
00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:40,960
emissions, such as using flare gas, off-grid behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining,

126
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:44,160
waste heat recovery, or carbon offsetting.

127
00:10:44,160 --> 00:10:49,200
Source, Cambridge methodology section.

128
00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:56,800
For context, 52.6% sustainable energy mix is higher than other industrial sectors.

129
00:10:56,800 --> 00:11:02,800
The rate of growth in sustainable energy use is also higher than other sectors.

130
00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:10,160
In summary, Bitcoin mining was indeed 62% from fossil fuels in 2021.

131
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:15,360
However, since then it has moved at a rapid rate to sustainable sources,

132
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:23,440
and as of 2023 is 52.6% backed by sustainable energy.

133
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:27,120
Let's move on to the second sentence in the report.

134
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:34,000
Bitcoin's energy-hungry technology has revived decommissioned coal-fired and fossil fuel power plants

135
00:11:34,000 --> 00:11:38,960
and caused substantial environmental and social damage.

136
00:11:38,960 --> 00:11:44,400
Again, let's break down the two claims.

137
00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:45,840
Claim.

138
00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:51,760
Bitcoin has revived decommissioned coal-fired and fossil fuel power plants.

139
00:11:51,760 --> 00:11:54,560
This is again untrue.

140
00:11:54,560 --> 00:12:02,000
The fossil fuel plant that Greenpeace USA are probably referring to is the Greenidge Energy Site at Lake Sanica,

141
00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:07,760
which was once a coal plant, but at the time of decommissioning was producing natural gas.

142
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:16,560
The plant was recommissioned to mine Bitcoin, the only known example of a gas plant that was brought back online for Bitcoin.

143
00:12:16,560 --> 00:12:24,400
While as an environmentalist, I agree this is far from ideal, it is also very, very important to consider the use of the gas plant.

144
00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:38,480
It is also worth noting that off-grid natural gas has an emission intensity of 429 grams emissions per kilowatt hour.

145
00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:44,560
The US grid has an emission intensity of 383 grams per kilowatt hour.

146
00:12:44,560 --> 00:12:51,120
So this is in fact a marginally more emissions-intense use, 46 grams per kilowatt hour,

147
00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:54,560
than using the national grid.

148
00:12:54,560 --> 00:13:00,000
Greenidge's Lake Sanica site uses 55 megawatts of power per year.

149
00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:06,720
So this site is using 0.4 tons CO2 emissions per year more than if they were using the grid.

150
00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:09,040
Again, not ideal.

151
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:12,480
However, let's put this in context.

152
00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:18,000
Global CO2 emissions are estimated to be 50 gigatons per annum.

153
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:31,520
So this represents a 0.000000800 additional contribution to global emissions above and beyond using the grid.

154
00:13:31,520 --> 00:13:41,440
To put that another way, under $50 invested in legitimate carbon offsetting would be sufficient to cover the additional emissions.

155
00:13:41,440 --> 00:13:47,920
Greenidge do in fact offset emissions, not just the delta, but their entire emissions.

156
00:13:47,920 --> 00:13:51,920
So a true statement with context would be,

157
00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:59,520
Bitcoin has revived one natural gas plant, which produces marginally more emissions than using the grid would have used.

158
00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:03,280
The mining company offsets their emissions.

159
00:14:03,280 --> 00:14:06,560
As an important additional piece of context setting,

160
00:14:06,560 --> 00:14:13,040
when an objective approach is used, such as evaluating Bitcoin's emission intensity of the entire network,

161
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:18,320
rather than the subjective approach of cherry picking examples which support the author's narrative,

162
00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:24,240
we get a very different picture of Bitcoin's energy intensity.

163
00:14:24,240 --> 00:14:29,760
Here the chart compares Bitcoin mining to the banking sector to the gold industry,

164
00:14:29,760 --> 00:14:36,480
banking and gold both being above Bitcoin in terms of emission intensity.

165
00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:40,160
Let's look at the second claim in this sentence.

166
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:47,120
Claim, Bitcoin has caused substantial environmental and social damage.

167
00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:54,800
Again untrue. Indeed the article makes no attempt to validate the unsubstantiated claim

168
00:14:54,800 --> 00:14:57,600
that Bitcoin has caused social damage.

169
00:14:57,600 --> 00:15:06,320
But since the claim has been made, let's look at the actual social impact of Bitcoin as supported by data.

170
00:15:06,320 --> 00:15:12,400
A recent Hootsuite report highlighted some interesting trends about user adoption of Bitcoin,

171
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:17,520
currently estimated to be 300 million plus and growing exponentially.

172
00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:22,640
Here you see a chart with Turkey, Argentina, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia,

173
00:15:22,640 --> 00:15:28,080
Brazil, Nigeria, UAE and the Netherlands.

174
00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:32,880
What's interesting to me as a data analyst is that, one,

175
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,960
the top two nations are both experiencing hyperinflation.

176
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,080
That's Turkey and Argentina.

177
00:15:40,080 --> 00:15:49,120
Two, all of the top 10 except the Netherlands have at least one in seven people who are unbanked.

178
00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:54,400
Three, with the exception of Argentina, Brazil and the Netherlands,

179
00:15:54,400 --> 00:16:03,200
the remaining seven nations all have autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes.

180
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:11,040
Discussions about Bitcoin's energy usage are often conducted without an examination of its social impact.

181
00:16:11,040 --> 00:16:17,840
This is a mistake because we could be biased against the technology based on misconceptions

182
00:16:17,840 --> 00:16:21,920
or lack of information about its utility.

183
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:27,840
For example, my first assessment of Bitcoin was speculative asset that does nothing useful

184
00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:30,320
but uses lots of energy.

185
00:16:30,320 --> 00:16:34,800
This perspective proved false, but in lieu of information to the contrary,

186
00:16:34,800 --> 00:16:38,720
my perspective predisposed me to think negatively about Bitcoin

187
00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:42,880
based on my first glance assessment of its social good.

188
00:16:42,880 --> 00:16:48,800
Here's a demographic snapshot of who they are and why they use it.

189
00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:52,640
There are 1.2 billion people who are unbanked.

190
00:16:52,640 --> 00:16:55,040
57% of them are women.

191
00:16:55,040 --> 00:16:57,920
90% are people of color.

192
00:16:57,920 --> 00:17:03,600
There are 4 billion people living under autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes

193
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:06,800
where the financial system can be used against them.

194
00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:13,520
For example, state freezing of bank accounts, censoring and surveillance of how you spend money.

195
00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:20,240
There are 8.1 million adult women in Afghanistan who are prohibited by law

196
00:17:20,240 --> 00:17:27,440
from opening a bank account, starting a business, or receiving an income because of their gender.

197
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:33,520
There are over 300 million people whose economies are experiencing hyperinflation,

198
00:17:33,520 --> 00:17:38,080
including Turkey, Lebanon, Argentina, and Venezuela.

199
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:42,480
These are the people who see the utility of Bitcoin first.

200
00:17:42,480 --> 00:17:48,720
Not us in the West who take for granted our privilege, human rights, functioning banking system,

201
00:17:48,720 --> 00:17:54,480
99% plus access to banking, and relatively low inflation.

202
00:17:54,480 --> 00:17:58,000
So what is the social utility to these people?

203
00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:01,360
It helps the unbanked because you don't need a bank.

204
00:18:01,360 --> 00:18:09,040
A feature phone plus some basic Bitcoin education is all you need to receive, save, and pay.

205
00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:12,800
There is a financial revolution happening in Africa right now.

206
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:16,720
The poorest in the world are leapfrogging the banking sector

207
00:18:16,720 --> 00:18:21,440
and going directly to internet native money, Bitcoin.

208
00:18:21,440 --> 00:18:28,000
This is why the continent of Africa is adopting Bitcoin faster than any other continent.

209
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:32,960
It helps people in autocratic regimes because they cannot be surveilled, censored,

210
00:18:32,960 --> 00:18:40,400
deplatformed, or frozen by the state. This is why Nigeria is one of the biggest adopters of Bitcoin.

211
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:44,480
It's driven by human rights activism.

212
00:18:44,480 --> 00:18:50,960
It helps women in Afghanistan because they can, and do, adopt Bitcoin lightning wallets,

213
00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:55,920
which means state discrimination cannot deny them financial equity.

214
00:18:55,920 --> 00:19:00,160
It helps those living with hyperinflation because it allows them to avoid

215
00:19:00,160 --> 00:19:07,280
10 years of life savings being reduced to one half its value inside a year.

216
00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:12,080
That's why of the top 10 nations adopting Bitcoin plus crypto,

217
00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:15,920
the top two nations are experiencing hyperinflation.

218
00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:22,480
Seven of the top eight countries were colonized and have heavy IMF World Bank loans.

219
00:19:22,480 --> 00:19:26,880
Seven out of 10 are autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes.

220
00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:32,160
Seven out of 10 are from Africa, Latin America, or Southeast Asia.

221
00:19:32,160 --> 00:19:36,240
In terms of social utility, the data suggests strongly

222
00:19:36,240 --> 00:19:40,400
that to more than one half of the world, Bitcoin is arguably

223
00:19:40,400 --> 00:19:44,800
the most useful technology in a generation.

224
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:48,080
Let's look at the second claim made in this sentence.

225
00:19:48,080 --> 00:19:53,760
Claim, Bitcoin causes substantial environmental damage.

226
00:19:53,760 --> 00:19:58,960
Some important context here is that there are now 41 Bitcoin mining operations

227
00:19:58,960 --> 00:20:02,960
that use sustainable energy-based operations.

228
00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:06,800
The report does not mention any of these operations.

229
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:10,560
Rather, the entire report documents the one case

230
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:16,240
of where a Bitcoin mining operation could be argued to be causing environmental damage.

231
00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:19,760
Strongholds scrubgrass site in Pennsylvania.

232
00:20:19,760 --> 00:20:24,160
This is currently the only known Bitcoin mining operation in the world

233
00:20:24,160 --> 00:20:28,960
that is still using a coal or coal-related product for power.

234
00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:31,680
Again, some important context.

235
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:35,840
The facility uses 2.4 exahash of hashing power.

236
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:39,040
This is a measure of computational power.

237
00:20:39,040 --> 00:20:45,840
Global hash rate is at the time of writing 379 exahash, source class node.

238
00:20:45,840 --> 00:20:50,720
So this is 0.63% of total network power.

239
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:56,560
If Greenpeace USA had said that 99.37% of the Bitcoin network

240
00:20:56,560 --> 00:21:02,160
does not use off-grid coal power plants, they would have been factually correct.

241
00:21:02,160 --> 00:21:07,280
However, even this exception is worthy of further examination.

242
00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:09,440
Stronghold does not burn coal.

243
00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:13,600
They burn GOB, which is a byproduct of the coal industry.

244
00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:17,680
The local community has been supportive of Strongholds project

245
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:21,520
because they claim it has resulted in tidying up the local environment

246
00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:24,880
and removing an environmental hazard.

247
00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:29,040
Stronghold have been credited by the community for removing GOB,

248
00:21:29,040 --> 00:21:33,440
which is an environmental hazard that pollutes waterways and soil.

249
00:21:33,440 --> 00:21:38,720
It can and does regularly catch on fire, causing emissions of carbon monoxide.

250
00:21:38,720 --> 00:21:44,000
Methane, 84 times more warming over a 20-year period than CO2.

251
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:48,720
From partial burning, soot and other toxic substances.

252
00:21:48,720 --> 00:21:52,480
That said, burning either coal or coal byproducts

253
00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:57,520
has a high emission intensity, which is a negative environmental externality.

254
00:21:57,520 --> 00:22:00,560
It is unclear whether this Bitcoin mining operation

255
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:03,760
is net positive or net negative to the environment

256
00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:07,120
and would need further analysis to determine this.

257
00:22:07,120 --> 00:22:11,840
Either way, this Bitcoin mining operation is highly anomalous

258
00:22:11,840 --> 00:22:17,360
with respect to the rest of Bitcoin mining since 2021 China ban.

259
00:22:17,360 --> 00:22:22,160
Besides this one example, there is no other evidence in the report

260
00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:27,600
to substantiate the claim of substantial environmental damage.

261
00:22:27,600 --> 00:22:34,480
Rather, the issue seems to be that the report's authors fear of what could happen in the future.

262
00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:38,800
This is a legitimate concern. However, if that were the angle,

263
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:44,080
it would be more honest to admit that Bitcoin causes minimal environmental harm today,

264
00:22:44,080 --> 00:22:50,400
but may be a problem in the future, rather than vilified Bitcoin as a climate catastrophe

265
00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:56,160
without any substantive evidence to back up such an emotive statement.

266
00:22:56,160 --> 00:23:01,200
Indeed, the report's executive summary states this fear.

267
00:23:01,200 --> 00:23:07,040
Left unchecked, Bitcoin's climate destruction is likely to accelerate.

268
00:23:07,040 --> 00:23:13,600
Likely, according to whom, there is again no evidence to support this claim.

269
00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:17,840
If we look at the data, there is, however, a growing weight of evidence

270
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:22,640
to suggest that the alternative hypothesis is likely the correct one.

271
00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:26,560
Left unchecked, Bitcoin's minimal environmental impact

272
00:23:26,560 --> 00:23:35,360
is likely to lessen further, and could in fact become a net positive to the environment before 2030.

273
00:23:35,360 --> 00:23:40,000
The evidence for this claim comes in the form of three data points.

274
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:46,240
One, Bitcoin emissions decreasing as hash rate increases.

275
00:23:46,240 --> 00:23:50,960
This is a critical piece of information that shows that despite fears that Bitcoin emissions

276
00:23:50,960 --> 00:23:55,760
would rise parabolically over a four-year halving cycle, emissions are in fact

277
00:23:55,760 --> 00:24:01,280
marginally down. Factors for this are included in the link above.

278
00:24:01,280 --> 00:24:06,080
There is a growing weight of evidence from those most qualified to make the assessment

279
00:24:06,080 --> 00:24:10,880
to suggest that Bitcoin mining helps build out the renewable grid.

280
00:24:10,880 --> 00:24:17,840
For example, former interim CEO of the ERCOT grid, Brad Jones, who witnessed Bitcoin's role

281
00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:24,880
in providing grid stability firsthand recently stated the following about Bitcoin mining.

282
00:24:24,880 --> 00:24:31,440
Bitcoin mining makes renewable operators more profitable, accelerates the renewable transition,

283
00:24:32,080 --> 00:24:40,480
does not compete with other uses of electricity, drives electricity costs for all users down.

284
00:24:40,480 --> 00:24:46,640
Brad Jones, former interim CEO of ERCOT, aka the grid operator.

285
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:52,240
Brad Jones is repeatedly ignored by mainstream media and environmental organizations,

286
00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:58,160
presumably because his informed view does not support the narrative of Sierra Club at all,

287
00:24:58,160 --> 00:25:02,560
who claim that Bitcoin's ability to help the renewable build out of the grid

288
00:25:02,560 --> 00:25:05,680
is a myth perpetuated by the Bitcoin mining community.

289
00:25:07,200 --> 00:25:12,080
Two, methane mitigation and grid renewable buildout potential.

290
00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:18,640
In terms of methane mitigation, particularly when it comes to landfill gas,

291
00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:24,720
Bitcoin's ability to be a proactive weapon to fight climate change deserves special mention.

292
00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:29,520
This is covered in detail in a special in-depth report I wrote on the subject.

293
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:31,760
Here is the high-level summary.

294
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:36,800
Here, Daniel has a chart that says Bitcoin mining is climate action,

295
00:25:37,360 --> 00:25:42,400
with three different circles, the largest methane, the second landfills, the third Bitcoin mining.

296
00:25:43,120 --> 00:25:46,880
For the methane circle, number one lever to reduce climate change.

297
00:25:46,880 --> 00:25:51,280
For the landfill circle, number one source of methane by 2032.

298
00:25:51,280 --> 00:25:57,200
And for the Bitcoin mining circle, number one way to reduce landfill methane.

299
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:03,520
Bitcoin mining, when used on landfills that were previously venting methane,

300
00:26:04,160 --> 00:26:09,120
also has a favorable rating in terms of its ability to economically offset emissions

301
00:26:09,120 --> 00:26:11,040
compared to new solar installations.

302
00:26:11,600 --> 00:26:15,920
For the curious, here's a 10-minute explainer video about how Bitcoin mining

303
00:26:15,920 --> 00:26:17,520
facilitates methane mitigation.

304
00:26:19,200 --> 00:26:24,480
Three, an objective assessment of environmental impact of a technology

305
00:26:24,480 --> 00:26:29,440
requires an evaluation of both positive and negative environmental externalities.

306
00:26:30,320 --> 00:26:35,840
Bitcoin has 21 environmental benefits that have been claimed with evidence for each claim.

307
00:26:36,640 --> 00:26:40,560
The Greenpeace USA article does not make mention of these benefits

308
00:26:40,560 --> 00:26:43,360
in their analysis of Bitcoin's environmental impact.

309
00:26:43,360 --> 00:26:51,200
This is therefore an incomplete and biased analysis precisely comparable to an accountant

310
00:26:51,200 --> 00:26:57,120
declaring, this business is in bad shape after having only examined the liabilities of that

311
00:26:57,120 --> 00:27:00,240
business but without having examined its assets.

312
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:03,680
Bitcoin's environmental benefits.

313
00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:07,920
First, off-grid customer for renewable operators.

314
00:27:07,920 --> 00:27:12,960
Number one, demand response tech for power oversupply.

315
00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:16,720
Number one, demand response tech for power undersupply.

316
00:27:16,720 --> 00:27:19,920
Resolve's time of day curtailment.

317
00:27:19,920 --> 00:27:23,120
Solution for geographic curtailment.

318
00:27:23,120 --> 00:27:27,280
Retire gas peaker plants, peak load management.

319
00:27:27,280 --> 00:27:31,200
Frequency management, voltage management.

320
00:27:31,200 --> 00:27:34,560
Inertia, ancillary service.

321
00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:37,840
Blackstart, ancillary service.

322
00:27:37,840 --> 00:27:40,960
Reduce vented landfill gas.

323
00:27:40,960 --> 00:27:43,680
Catalyze new renewable innovation.

324
00:27:43,680 --> 00:27:46,480
Reduce flared gas emissions.

325
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:49,200
Reduce wastewater methane emissions.

326
00:27:49,200 --> 00:27:52,640
Reduce farm biogas emissions.

327
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:56,080
Facilitate renewable microgrid development.

328
00:27:56,080 --> 00:27:58,960
Emission reduction through heat recycling.

329
00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:01,360
Local environment cleanup.

330
00:28:01,360 --> 00:28:05,200
End extended military campaigns on credit.

331
00:28:05,200 --> 00:28:08,640
End petrodollar.

332
00:28:08,640 --> 00:28:11,120
Reduce consumption-based global economy.

333
00:28:12,640 --> 00:28:16,320
When the positive and negative externalities of Bitcoin are both assessed,

334
00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:21,120
Bitcoin has an overall 21 to 5 balance net positive.

335
00:28:21,120 --> 00:28:34,720
Claim a change in the code will solve the problem.

336
00:28:35,920 --> 00:28:43,280
False. Greenpeace USA suggests a cure that would kill the host for a patient that is not sick.

337
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:47,840
The report suggests that financial institutions should show

338
00:28:47,840 --> 00:28:52,160
support for a code change to reduce BTC's pollution.

339
00:28:54,480 --> 00:28:58,400
Firstly, it is important to point out that Bitcoin mining,

340
00:28:58,400 --> 00:29:02,640
like electric vehicles, is a fully electrified technology.

341
00:29:03,600 --> 00:29:07,840
As such, Bitcoin does not produce any direct emissions.

342
00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:14,720
Like EVs and indeed every other technology being used by humanity at this time in history,

343
00:29:14,720 --> 00:29:20,880
Bitcoin does have scope to emissions due to the fact that the grids whose electricity Bitcoin miners use

344
00:29:20,880 --> 00:29:26,960
are reliant on electricity which is often generated using fossil fuels.

345
00:29:28,640 --> 00:29:33,360
Here's a breakdown that shows Bitcoin's scope to emissions relative to EVs.

346
00:29:34,000 --> 00:29:39,040
Because, unlike EVs, Bitcoin miners are able to use off-grid power,

347
00:29:39,760 --> 00:29:42,240
mostly renewable sources such as hydro.

348
00:29:42,240 --> 00:29:47,200
It has a lower scope to emission profile than EVs.

349
00:29:49,680 --> 00:29:53,280
Here Daniel shows a chart of indirect energy sources.

350
00:29:53,280 --> 00:30:05,120
We have EVs with 36.7% sustainable, 63.3% fossil fuels, and Bitcoin with 53.8% sustainable,

351
00:30:05,120 --> 00:30:07,920
and 46.2% fossil fuels.

352
00:30:07,920 --> 00:30:18,880
This again begs the question, why is Greenpeace USA singling out a technology that is fully electrified,

353
00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:26,000
has no scope one emissions, and has lower scope two emissions than other grid reliant technologies,

354
00:30:26,000 --> 00:30:27,440
including EVs?

355
00:30:28,720 --> 00:30:34,480
Second, the suggestion that a change in the code would be the correct way to lessen

356
00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:42,080
Bitcoin's emission, betrays an ignorance of how Bitcoin's code base works, and how changes to the protocol work.

357
00:30:43,040 --> 00:30:48,080
Without going into elaborate details about the proof-of-work consensus mechanism,

358
00:30:48,080 --> 00:30:55,280
we can summarize this point by saying that proof of work is to Bitcoin as the cerebral cortex is to humans.

359
00:30:55,920 --> 00:31:02,640
The proof-of-work algorithm, among other benefits, makes Bitcoin invulnerable to cyber-attack

360
00:31:02,640 --> 00:31:09,680
by colluding nation-states. This is why it offers the broad range of social impact benefits it does,

361
00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:15,280
particularly to an exponentially growing community of users in the global south.

362
00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:22,400
Without this mechanism, it would not be Bitcoin, it would not be a censorship-resistant form of

363
00:31:22,400 --> 00:31:25,440
money, it would just be another altcoin.

364
00:31:25,440 --> 00:31:32,400
The other important point about Bitcoin is that it is an open-source peer-to-peer technology.

365
00:31:33,200 --> 00:31:39,840
Changes to the code are not governed by central powers, they are decided by the community by consensus.

366
00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:45,920
There is a global network of Bitcoin miners, developers, and node owners.

367
00:31:46,800 --> 00:31:51,040
If anyone feels that they have a code change that would benefit Bitcoin,

368
00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:56,960
then the participatory democracy structure that is Bitcoin gives you the freedom to suggest that change,

369
00:31:56,960 --> 00:32:03,440
and even make that change. Of course, being participatory democracy,

370
00:32:03,440 --> 00:32:07,200
other users are free to use or ignore that change too.

371
00:32:07,840 --> 00:32:14,720
Greenpeace USA have spent $5 million of Chris Larson's money, chairman of Ripple,

372
00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:16,960
and the donor behind the Change the Code campaign.

373
00:32:16,960 --> 00:32:22,240
Plus whatever money they have used from their own donor base to lobby for a change to the code.

374
00:32:23,280 --> 00:32:30,400
The total number of node owners, developers, and miners who have taken up this suggestion so far is zero.

375
00:32:41,280 --> 00:32:44,320
False and psychologically manipulative

376
00:32:44,320 --> 00:32:47,520
neuroassociations, Bitcoin and Coal.

377
00:32:50,000 --> 00:32:56,960
Coal kills, says the article, complete with the famous Skull of Satoshi emblem,

378
00:32:56,960 --> 00:33:03,280
complete with a coal furnace in lieu of hair. Throughout the article, Greenpeace USA

379
00:33:03,280 --> 00:33:09,520
attempts to neuroassociate Bitcoin with Coal, typically through imagery rather than evidence.

380
00:33:09,520 --> 00:33:15,120
This association is, however, false. It is also psychologically manipulative.

381
00:33:15,920 --> 00:33:22,240
An important context that is not mentioned in the article is that the global electrical grid

382
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:30,240
currently has Coal as its major fuel source. From our world and data, more than one-third of global

383
00:33:30,240 --> 00:33:35,440
electricity comes from low carbon sources, but a lot less of total energy does.

384
00:33:35,440 --> 00:33:51,440
Here we have oil 3.1%, Coal 36.7%, Gas 23.5%, Nuclear 10.4%, Hydro Power 15.8%,

385
00:33:52,160 --> 00:34:01,280
and wind 5.3, Solar 2.7, Other Renewables 2.5. The total from fossil fuels is 63.3%,

386
00:34:01,280 --> 00:34:06,720
whereas the total from low carbon is 36.7%.

387
00:34:09,680 --> 00:34:16,400
This means that data centers, EVs, gaming technology, clothes dryers, house lighting,

388
00:34:16,400 --> 00:34:22,640
electric heaters, smartphones, computers, electric stove tops, and a myriad of other

389
00:34:22,640 --> 00:34:27,040
appliances and technology are predominantly powered by Coal.

390
00:34:27,040 --> 00:34:35,200
Remarkably and ironically, Bitcoin, because of its unique ability to locate on-site at renewable

391
00:34:35,200 --> 00:34:42,320
energy sites, finds itself the only global technology that is not powered by Coal, Bitcoin

392
00:34:42,320 --> 00:34:59,920
Energy Sources chart. Gas 21.14%, Hydro 23.12%, Wind 13.98%, Nuclear 7.94%, Solar 4.98%, Coal

393
00:34:59,920 --> 00:35:07,840
22.92%, Flared 1.23%, Other Renewable 2.40%.

394
00:35:07,840 --> 00:35:12,960
How Did Greenpeace USA Arrive at Such Conclusions?

395
00:35:14,800 --> 00:35:21,040
In Greenpeace USA's defense, they are reliant on the quality of journalism and academic research

396
00:35:21,040 --> 00:35:27,200
for underpinning their conclusions. As is routinely the case in the first 10 to 15 years

397
00:35:27,200 --> 00:35:32,960
of understanding a novel technology, this quality academic and journalistic work in the main channels

398
00:35:32,960 --> 00:35:38,400
is yet to appear, as highlighted in a recent report by the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

399
00:35:40,320 --> 00:35:45,920
This is, it would appear, the rite of passage that any novel and disruptive technology must go

400
00:35:45,920 --> 00:35:52,400
through. It is human nature to fear the unknown, and for both academics and journalists to vilify

401
00:35:52,400 --> 00:36:00,560
first, seek to understand second. This is why the initial inquiry into a novel technology

402
00:36:00,560 --> 00:36:07,840
has a history of being incorrect, often farcically so. The internet, for example, was famously

403
00:36:07,840 --> 00:36:14,000
dismissed as being no more important to the economy than a fax machine by one prominent academic,

404
00:36:14,000 --> 00:36:18,640
and lampooned by journalists as heralding the need to revive our coal industry,

405
00:36:19,360 --> 00:36:23,760
a prediction made in ignorance of the exponential improvement in computer chip efficiency.

406
00:36:23,760 --> 00:36:29,280
Similarly with Bitcoin, neither academics nor journalists yet have a deep and grounded

407
00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:35,360
understanding of what Bitcoin is, something that is readily apparent in their work.

408
00:36:36,560 --> 00:36:45,200
For example, as recently as July 2023, an academic study used data from 2018 to make the claim

409
00:36:45,200 --> 00:36:52,560
that Bitcoin used 17 megajoules per dollar. Significant amount of electricity for a

410
00:36:52,560 --> 00:36:59,280
electricity, for example, Krause and Tolleymat 2018, estimated that Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin,

411
00:36:59,280 --> 00:37:06,400
and Monero mining consumed an average of 17, 7, 7, and 14 megajoules respectively to generate

412
00:37:06,400 --> 00:37:12,240
one USD in value for the period of January 1st, 2016 through June 30th, 2018.

413
00:37:13,200 --> 00:37:19,600
The authors appear unaware that in 2018, the market cap of Bitcoin was one third of what it is

414
00:37:19,600 --> 00:37:26,800
today and the average joule per tera hash rating of machines were 5 to 10 times higher. The current

415
00:37:26,800 --> 00:37:33,040
megajoule per dollar based on Bitcoin's current energy consumption and market cap is 0.72 megajoules

416
00:37:33,040 --> 00:37:39,600
per dollar. In other words, the citation is out by a factor of 24X.

417
00:37:41,200 --> 00:37:45,520
Writing about Bitcoin mining without understanding machine efficiency curves

418
00:37:45,520 --> 00:37:50,720
is like making projections about the power consumption of the internet without understanding

419
00:37:50,720 --> 00:37:56,880
the impact of Moore's law. It is a rookie's error, an error made in the first years of the

420
00:37:56,880 --> 00:38:03,760
internet and now repeated in the first years of Bitcoin. Similarly, the peer review process

421
00:38:03,760 --> 00:38:09,360
has not provided the normal protective rails to prevent flawed scholarship making its way into

422
00:38:09,360 --> 00:38:15,440
academic journals because the peer reviewers share the same lack of domain expertise in Bitcoin

423
00:38:15,440 --> 00:38:22,160
and Bitcoin mining as the authors themselves. It will take time for academic study to become

424
00:38:22,160 --> 00:38:27,840
reliable and for journalism about Bitcoin to become reliable, just as it took a long time

425
00:38:27,840 --> 00:38:34,480
for other technological innovations. These academic studies inform journalists who also

426
00:38:34,480 --> 00:38:39,840
lack understanding about Bitcoin. These journalists inform the perspective of some environmental

427
00:38:39,840 --> 00:38:47,040
groups. When all three communities lack a basic understanding of how Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining

428
00:38:47,040 --> 00:38:53,520
works, then it is unsurprising that we should come up with conclusions and campaigns that are as

429
00:38:53,520 --> 00:38:58,640
eye-raisingly wrong as the first wave of expert conclusions about other technologies.

430
00:39:00,320 --> 00:39:07,040
There is not the slightest doubt that bicycle riding, if persisted in, leads to weakness of mind,

431
00:39:07,040 --> 00:39:13,360
general lunacy and homicidal mania. The New York Times, 1894.

432
00:39:16,640 --> 00:39:22,400
Conclusion Owing to its many inaccuracies, exclusions,

433
00:39:22,400 --> 00:39:28,480
use of flawed source data, absence of evidence to support many assertions, lack of objective

434
00:39:28,480 --> 00:39:33,840
evaluation of complete environmental impact, and evidence of strong presenter bias,

435
00:39:33,840 --> 00:39:42,160
this report should be disregarded. We encourage Greenpeace USA, other environmental organizations,

436
00:39:42,160 --> 00:39:47,360
journalists, and academics to start learning about the following subjects.

437
00:39:48,880 --> 00:39:55,920
Proof of work What is a consensus mechanism, and why is it an important feature of a distributed ledger?

438
00:39:55,920 --> 00:40:03,360
What problems does Bitcoin solve? What communities are using Bitcoin and why?

439
00:40:05,040 --> 00:40:10,240
What role does Bitcoin currently play in enabling the acceleration of renewable energy?

440
00:40:11,840 --> 00:40:16,000
What role can Bitcoin mining uniquely place in methane mitigation?

441
00:40:17,440 --> 00:40:20,560
Trends What's happening with hash rate,

442
00:40:20,560 --> 00:40:28,160
machine efficiency, and location of miners? Why do mining companies seek out stranded energy,

443
00:40:28,800 --> 00:40:35,920
and why is it normally renewable? What advantages does Bitcoin mining have over other technologies

444
00:40:35,920 --> 00:40:41,760
in helping grid load balancing, providing a first customer to off-grid renewables,

445
00:40:41,760 --> 00:40:44,400
and reducing the curtailment of renewable energy?

446
00:40:46,080 --> 00:40:50,320
What mistakes did the first generation of reports on Bitcoin mining make,

447
00:40:50,320 --> 00:40:54,560
and how have subsequent reports improved upon these omissions and mistakes?

448
00:40:56,000 --> 00:41:02,640
Why is wholesale energy, not price, the biggest driver for the types of miners used to mine Bitcoin?

449
00:41:04,240 --> 00:41:10,320
The economics of Bitcoin mining Why Bitcoin mining is called a non-rival energy user?

450
00:41:10,320 --> 00:41:20,560
What is the most important part of Bitcoin mining?

451
00:41:20,560 --> 00:41:25,440
These areas are as fundamental to be able to write authoritatively about Bitcoin

452
00:41:25,440 --> 00:41:29,760
as an understanding of climate models is to the understanding of climate science.

453
00:41:31,040 --> 00:41:36,480
On a positive note, several university courses are now starting to emerge on Bitcoin,

454
00:41:36,480 --> 00:41:41,040
where students will be properly grounded in their understanding of the above subjects.

455
00:41:42,080 --> 00:41:44,880
There are three such universities in Switzerland alone.

456
00:41:46,960 --> 00:41:51,600
There is also evidence that more and more journalists are starting to research at Bitcoin

457
00:41:51,600 --> 00:41:56,560
before writing about it. Out of the first 30 articles published in the mainstream media

458
00:41:56,560 --> 00:42:02,880
on Bitcoin and ESG during 2023, 24 of them were positive evaluations.

459
00:42:02,880 --> 00:42:07,520
These measures will improve the quality of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining research,

460
00:42:07,520 --> 00:42:12,160
and help end the era of vilification through lack of understanding,

461
00:42:12,160 --> 00:42:20,080
that all novel and disruptive technologies seemingly must pass through.

462
00:42:20,800 --> 00:42:27,520
And that's a wrap on this Bitcoin out loud read of Daniel Batten's Greenpeace Rebuttal.

463
00:42:27,520 --> 00:42:34,880
Daniel's Rebuttal is linked in the show notes and you can follow him at dsbatten on Twitter.

464
00:42:36,320 --> 00:42:41,280
My name is Walker and this is the Bitcoin Podcast. If you want to follow me on Twitter,

465
00:42:41,280 --> 00:42:48,080
go to attitcoinpodcast and at Walker America. You can also find me on Noster by going to

466
00:42:48,080 --> 00:42:54,960
primal.net slash Walker. Bitcoin is scarce. There will only ever be 21 million,

467
00:42:54,960 --> 00:43:01,440
but Bitcoin podcasts are abundant. So thank you for spending your scarce time to listen to

468
00:43:01,440 --> 00:43:28,320
another fucking Bitcoin podcast. Until next time, stay free.