Greetings and salutations my fellow plebs. My name is Walker and this is the
Bitcoin Podcast. It's Monday July 17th 2023. At the time of recording the Bitcoin
block height is 799-099 and the value of one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin.
Today's episode is Bitcoin Out Loud where I read you a Bitcoin or Bitcoin
adjacent piece. Today's piece addresses one of the biggest misconceptions about
Bitcoin pushed by certain members of the media, altcoin promoters, corrupt NGOs,
and generally uninformed politicians and celebrities. Bitcoin is bad for the
environment. A little context for today's read.
About a week ago Greenpeace tweeted,
new GPUSA report, Bitcoin climate destruction is powered by the same old
traditional finance institutions. Today's report shows how BlackRock,
Chase, and others are failing their climate pledges and stopping our progress
on climate goals. With a link to a report called, Investing in Bitcoin's Climate
Pollution. So for those who may be unfamiliar with Greenpeace's record on
Bitcoin propaganda, here's a very brief summary. Greenpeace USA was paid $5
million by Ripple co-founder and executive chairman Chris Larson to start an
anti-Bitcoin propaganda campaign with the goal of getting Bitcoin to
hashtag change the code from proof of work to proof of stake. A move which would
make Bitcoin almost as worthless as centralized proof of stake tokens like
Ethereum. Since receiving this $5 million in Ripple
lobbying money, Greenpeace has been publishing all sorts of poorly
researched claims, attack ads, junk science, and outright propaganda about
Bitcoin. Additionally, because Bitcoin is open source
technology, anyone can copy Bitcoin's code and create a new
version that is proof of stake. Nothing is stopping Greenpeace from doing this.
And in fact, just such a POS copy of Bitcoin already exists. And the reason
you probably haven't heard of it is because nobody wants a Bitcoin knockoff
that gets rid of one of the core pieces of what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin.
Using real-world energy in Bitcoin's proof of work mechanism
is crucial as it creates tangible costs to malicious activities,
thus providing a strong economic deterrent against attacks on the network
and ensuring the security and integrity of Bitcoin.
Okay, so now you're pretty much caught up.
Yesterday, Daniel Batten responded to Greenpeace's tweet,
saying simply, rebutted, with a screenshot of his conclusions
and a link to his full rebuttal. Daniel Batten is a climate activist and
climate tech investor turned Bitcoiner, who is still a climate activist
because, and I know this might melt some brains out in the Greenpeace world,
Bitcoin is a net benefit for the environment.
I highly recommend following Daniel on Twitter. You can find him at
dsbatten.com. That's DS Batten. So today, I'm going to read
Daniel's entire piece titled, Rebuttal of Greenpeace USA Report on Bitcoin.
Daniel links to a bunch of resources within the report, so if you want to
follow along and check the sources as I read or see some of the graphics,
you can find a link in the show notes. So, without further ado, let's get into it.
Rebuttal of Greenpeace USA Report on Bitcoin by Daniel Batten.
How to use this article. Since the original Greenpeace USA article uses
many of the arguments that are traditionally used by opponents of
Bitcoin to argue that it is a net environmental negative,
this article serves as a useful counterpoint to share with any
environmentally conscious person who may have encountered negative
environmental messaging around Bitcoin and is curious enough to seek
context before forming their own viewpoint. Context.
In July 2023, Greenpeace USA published a report infesting in Bitcoin's climate
pollution. My Rebuttal argues that the report
recycles many already widely debunked claims about Bitcoin,
uses unsubstantiated fear about quote,
what might happen rather than evidence to influence readers,
and repeatedly avoids important contextualizing information
in order to present a skewed and in many cases
false appraisal of Bitcoin. Original Greenpeace USA report is linked here in
Daniel's piece. In my reply, I have adopted the approach,
one, provide independent data and evidence for all claims. Two, avoid image
neuro associations, name calling, and other covert persuasion techniques.
Three, profile important contextualizing information
wherever possible so that readers have informed perspective.
Highly Emotive Unsubstantiated Claim in the Report Framing Page.
Most people will not have the time to read the article, so will instead rely on
their framing page with the link to the full article.
The framing for the article is filled with emotive language without evidence,
such as the unsupported claim that Bitcoin is a quote,
climate catastrophe. The problem with Greenpeace USA's framing of
Bitcoin is evident in the first sentence, where two claims are made.
Bitcoin consumes as much electricity as entire countries,
and 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining globally in 2022
came from fossil fuels. The first claim is true, but misleading.
The second claim is false. These claims are repeated verbatim in the
main report, so let's examine each claim.
Claim. Bitcoin consumes as much energy as entire countries.
This has been a familiar catch-cry of Bitcoin antagonists, perhaps because it's
one of the few claims against Bitcoin that is factually correct.
However, it is also a misleading claim. Let's examine why.
Firstly, Cambridge University on their site discouraged such comparisons between
industries and nations, because they can make an industry look worse than it in
fact is. They call this technique presenter bias.
It's easy to see why. Comparing an industry to a nation is by definition
an apples-to-oranges comparison. Secondly, it is also true that any number
of industries use more energy than a single country.
The same is true for example of video gaming, Netflix, traditional data centers,
the banking industry, clothes dryers, and Christmas lights.
Yet it is only Bitcoin that is singled out in this way.
In fact, every industry in this chart below uses more energy than entire countries.
Thirdly, Bitcoin actually uses less energy than each of the industries listed below.
So if we're going to make a comparison, why not compare industry to industry
by saying Bitcoin uses less energy than Christmas lights?
As a quick aside, in the chart below you'll see Bitcoin, gold mining, and jewelry,
air transport, sea transport, land transport, health care, finance,
and insurance, construction, military industrial complex, and the building center,
all of which use more energy than Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin truly were causing climate catastrophe, then why is Greenpeace USA
not also targeting those other industries and lobbying investors and companies
to curtail their use of, for example, video gaming?
There is a complete cognitive dissonance between the claim of
Greenpeace USA and the actions of the organization.
Either they are making a hyperbolic claim, or they are failing to be a good
environmental watchdog by turning a blind eye to the numerous industries that,
by their own logic, must be climate mega catastrophes.
Let's look at the second claim.
Claim 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining globally in 2022
came from fossil fuels.
This claim is untrue.
The truth is, quote, a 2022 study from Cambridge University,
which by Cambridge's own admission contained less than half of miners,
may not be representative and did not include mining activities
that could be, quote, reasonably expected to improve the sustainable energy mix of Bitcoin,
claimed that 62% of the electricity used for Bitcoin mining came from fossil fuels.
The omissions in the CCAF study have since been addressed in my more recent 2023 study,
which showed that when off-grid mining, flare gas mining,
and the geographic migration of miners since January 2020,
is taken into account, 52.6% of Bitcoin mining globally in 2023
came from sustainable energy sources.
Cambridge's report cited by Greenpeace, by contrast,
did not factor in some of the most important factors in calculating Bitcoin energy mix.
Our estimates do not account for any activities that could reasonably be expected to reduce
emissions, such as using flare gas, off-grid behind-the-meter Bitcoin mining,
waste heat recovery, or carbon offsetting.
Source, Cambridge methodology section.
For context, 52.6% sustainable energy mix is higher than other industrial sectors.
The rate of growth in sustainable energy use is also higher than other sectors.
In summary, Bitcoin mining was indeed 62% from fossil fuels in 2021.
However, since then it has moved at a rapid rate to sustainable sources,
and as of 2023 is 52.6% backed by sustainable energy.
Let's move on to the second sentence in the report.
Bitcoin's energy-hungry technology has revived decommissioned coal-fired and fossil fuel power plants
and caused substantial environmental and social damage.
Again, let's break down the two claims.
Claim.
Bitcoin has revived decommissioned coal-fired and fossil fuel power plants.
This is again untrue.
The fossil fuel plant that Greenpeace USA are probably referring to is the Greenidge Energy Site at Lake Sanica,
which was once a coal plant, but at the time of decommissioning was producing natural gas.
The plant was recommissioned to mine Bitcoin, the only known example of a gas plant that was brought back online for Bitcoin.
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.
It is also worth noting that off-grid natural gas has an emission intensity of 429 grams emissions per kilowatt hour.
The US grid has an emission intensity of 383 grams per kilowatt hour.
So this is in fact a marginally more emissions-intense use, 46 grams per kilowatt hour,
than using the national grid.
Greenidge's Lake Sanica site uses 55 megawatts of power per year.
So this site is using 0.4 tons CO2 emissions per year more than if they were using the grid.
Again, not ideal.
However, let's put this in context.
Global CO2 emissions are estimated to be 50 gigatons per annum.
So this represents a 0.000000800 additional contribution to global emissions above and beyond using the grid.
To put that another way, under $50 invested in legitimate carbon offsetting would be sufficient to cover the additional emissions.
Greenidge do in fact offset emissions, not just the delta, but their entire emissions.
So a true statement with context would be,
Bitcoin has revived one natural gas plant, which produces marginally more emissions than using the grid would have used.
The mining company offsets their emissions.
As an important additional piece of context setting,
when an objective approach is used, such as evaluating Bitcoin's emission intensity of the entire network,
rather than the subjective approach of cherry picking examples which support the author's narrative,
we get a very different picture of Bitcoin's energy intensity.
Here the chart compares Bitcoin mining to the banking sector to the gold industry,
banking and gold both being above Bitcoin in terms of emission intensity.
Let's look at the second claim in this sentence.
Claim, Bitcoin has caused substantial environmental and social damage.
Again untrue. Indeed the article makes no attempt to validate the unsubstantiated claim
that Bitcoin has caused social damage.
But since the claim has been made, let's look at the actual social impact of Bitcoin as supported by data.
A recent Hootsuite report highlighted some interesting trends about user adoption of Bitcoin,
currently estimated to be 300 million plus and growing exponentially.
Here you see a chart with Turkey, Argentina, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia,
Brazil, Nigeria, UAE and the Netherlands.
What's interesting to me as a data analyst is that, one,
the top two nations are both experiencing hyperinflation.
That's Turkey and Argentina.
Two, all of the top 10 except the Netherlands have at least one in seven people who are unbanked.
Three, with the exception of Argentina, Brazil and the Netherlands,
the remaining seven nations all have autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes.
Discussions about Bitcoin's energy usage are often conducted without an examination of its social impact.
This is a mistake because we could be biased against the technology based on misconceptions
or lack of information about its utility.
For example, my first assessment of Bitcoin was speculative asset that does nothing useful
but uses lots of energy.
This perspective proved false, but in lieu of information to the contrary,
my perspective predisposed me to think negatively about Bitcoin
based on my first glance assessment of its social good.
Here's a demographic snapshot of who they are and why they use it.
There are 1.2 billion people who are unbanked.
57% of them are women.
90% are people of color.
There are 4 billion people living under autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes
where the financial system can be used against them.
For example, state freezing of bank accounts, censoring and surveillance of how you spend money.
There are 8.1 million adult women in Afghanistan who are prohibited by law
from opening a bank account, starting a business, or receiving an income because of their gender.
There are over 300 million people whose economies are experiencing hyperinflation,
including Turkey, Lebanon, Argentina, and Venezuela.
These are the people who see the utility of Bitcoin first.
Not us in the West who take for granted our privilege, human rights, functioning banking system,
99% plus access to banking, and relatively low inflation.
So what is the social utility to these people?
It helps the unbanked because you don't need a bank.
A feature phone plus some basic Bitcoin education is all you need to receive, save, and pay.
There is a financial revolution happening in Africa right now.
The poorest in the world are leapfrogging the banking sector
and going directly to internet native money, Bitcoin.
This is why the continent of Africa is adopting Bitcoin faster than any other continent.
It helps people in autocratic regimes because they cannot be surveilled, censored,
deplatformed, or frozen by the state. This is why Nigeria is one of the biggest adopters of Bitcoin.
It's driven by human rights activism.
It helps women in Afghanistan because they can, and do, adopt Bitcoin lightning wallets,
which means state discrimination cannot deny them financial equity.
It helps those living with hyperinflation because it allows them to avoid
10 years of life savings being reduced to one half its value inside a year.
That's why of the top 10 nations adopting Bitcoin plus crypto,
the top two nations are experiencing hyperinflation.
Seven of the top eight countries were colonized and have heavy IMF World Bank loans.
Seven out of 10 are autocratic or semi-autocratic regimes.
Seven out of 10 are from Africa, Latin America, or Southeast Asia.
In terms of social utility, the data suggests strongly
that to more than one half of the world, Bitcoin is arguably
the most useful technology in a generation.
Let's look at the second claim made in this sentence.
Claim, Bitcoin causes substantial environmental damage.
Some important context here is that there are now 41 Bitcoin mining operations
that use sustainable energy-based operations.
The report does not mention any of these operations.
Rather, the entire report documents the one case
of where a Bitcoin mining operation could be argued to be causing environmental damage.
Strongholds scrubgrass site in Pennsylvania.
This is currently the only known Bitcoin mining operation in the world
that is still using a coal or coal-related product for power.
Again, some important context.
The facility uses 2.4 exahash of hashing power.
This is a measure of computational power.
Global hash rate is at the time of writing 379 exahash, source class node.
So this is 0.63% of total network power.
If Greenpeace USA had said that 99.37% of the Bitcoin network
does not use off-grid coal power plants, they would have been factually correct.
However, even this exception is worthy of further examination.
Stronghold does not burn coal.
They burn GOB, which is a byproduct of the coal industry.
The local community has been supportive of Strongholds project
because they claim it has resulted in tidying up the local environment
and removing an environmental hazard.
Stronghold have been credited by the community for removing GOB,
which is an environmental hazard that pollutes waterways and soil.
It can and does regularly catch on fire, causing emissions of carbon monoxide.
Methane, 84 times more warming over a 20-year period than CO2.
From partial burning, soot and other toxic substances.
That said, burning either coal or coal byproducts
has a high emission intensity, which is a negative environmental externality.
It is unclear whether this Bitcoin mining operation
is net positive or net negative to the environment
and would need further analysis to determine this.
Either way, this Bitcoin mining operation is highly anomalous
with respect to the rest of Bitcoin mining since 2021 China ban.
Besides this one example, there is no other evidence in the report
to substantiate the claim of substantial environmental damage.
Rather, the issue seems to be that the report's authors fear of what could happen in the future.
This is a legitimate concern. However, if that were the angle,
it would be more honest to admit that Bitcoin causes minimal environmental harm today,
but may be a problem in the future, rather than vilified Bitcoin as a climate catastrophe
without any substantive evidence to back up such an emotive statement.
Indeed, the report's executive summary states this fear.
Left unchecked, Bitcoin's climate destruction is likely to accelerate.
Likely, according to whom, there is again no evidence to support this claim.
If we look at the data, there is, however, a growing weight of evidence
to suggest that the alternative hypothesis is likely the correct one.
Left unchecked, Bitcoin's minimal environmental impact
is likely to lessen further, and could in fact become a net positive to the environment before 2030.
The evidence for this claim comes in the form of three data points.
One, Bitcoin emissions decreasing as hash rate increases.
This is a critical piece of information that shows that despite fears that Bitcoin emissions
would rise parabolically over a four-year halving cycle, emissions are in fact
marginally down. Factors for this are included in the link above.
There is a growing weight of evidence from those most qualified to make the assessment
to suggest that Bitcoin mining helps build out the renewable grid.
For example, former interim CEO of the ERCOT grid, Brad Jones, who witnessed Bitcoin's role
in providing grid stability firsthand recently stated the following about Bitcoin mining.
Bitcoin mining makes renewable operators more profitable, accelerates the renewable transition,
does not compete with other uses of electricity, drives electricity costs for all users down.
Brad Jones, former interim CEO of ERCOT, aka the grid operator.
Brad Jones is repeatedly ignored by mainstream media and environmental organizations,
presumably because his informed view does not support the narrative of Sierra Club at all,
who claim that Bitcoin's ability to help the renewable build out of the grid
is a myth perpetuated by the Bitcoin mining community.
Two, methane mitigation and grid renewable buildout potential.
In terms of methane mitigation, particularly when it comes to landfill gas,
Bitcoin's ability to be a proactive weapon to fight climate change deserves special mention.
This is covered in detail in a special in-depth report I wrote on the subject.
Here is the high-level summary.
Here, Daniel has a chart that says Bitcoin mining is climate action,
with three different circles, the largest methane, the second landfills, the third Bitcoin mining.
For the methane circle, number one lever to reduce climate change.
For the landfill circle, number one source of methane by 2032.
And for the Bitcoin mining circle, number one way to reduce landfill methane.
Bitcoin mining, when used on landfills that were previously venting methane,
also has a favorable rating in terms of its ability to economically offset emissions
compared to new solar installations.
For the curious, here's a 10-minute explainer video about how Bitcoin mining
facilitates methane mitigation.
Three, an objective assessment of environmental impact of a technology
requires an evaluation of both positive and negative environmental externalities.
Bitcoin has 21 environmental benefits that have been claimed with evidence for each claim.
The Greenpeace USA article does not make mention of these benefits
in their analysis of Bitcoin's environmental impact.
This is therefore an incomplete and biased analysis precisely comparable to an accountant
declaring, this business is in bad shape after having only examined the liabilities of that
business but without having examined its assets.
Bitcoin's environmental benefits.
First, off-grid customer for renewable operators.
Number one, demand response tech for power oversupply.
Number one, demand response tech for power undersupply.
Resolve's time of day curtailment.
Solution for geographic curtailment.
Retire gas peaker plants, peak load management.
Frequency management, voltage management.
Inertia, ancillary service.
Blackstart, ancillary service.
Reduce vented landfill gas.
Catalyze new renewable innovation.
Reduce flared gas emissions.
Reduce wastewater methane emissions.
Reduce farm biogas emissions.
Facilitate renewable microgrid development.
Emission reduction through heat recycling.
Local environment cleanup.
End extended military campaigns on credit.
End petrodollar.
Reduce consumption-based global economy.
When the positive and negative externalities of Bitcoin are both assessed,
Bitcoin has an overall 21 to 5 balance net positive.
Claim a change in the code will solve the problem.
False. Greenpeace USA suggests a cure that would kill the host for a patient that is not sick.
The report suggests that financial institutions should show
support for a code change to reduce BTC's pollution.
Firstly, it is important to point out that Bitcoin mining,
like electric vehicles, is a fully electrified technology.
As such, Bitcoin does not produce any direct emissions.
Like EVs and indeed every other technology being used by humanity at this time in history,
Bitcoin does have scope to emissions due to the fact that the grids whose electricity Bitcoin miners use
are reliant on electricity which is often generated using fossil fuels.
Here's a breakdown that shows Bitcoin's scope to emissions relative to EVs.
Because, unlike EVs, Bitcoin miners are able to use off-grid power,
mostly renewable sources such as hydro.
It has a lower scope to emission profile than EVs.
Here Daniel shows a chart of indirect energy sources.
We have EVs with 36.7% sustainable, 63.3% fossil fuels, and Bitcoin with 53.8% sustainable,
and 46.2% fossil fuels.
This again begs the question, why is Greenpeace USA singling out a technology that is fully electrified,
has no scope one emissions, and has lower scope two emissions than other grid reliant technologies,
including EVs?
Second, the suggestion that a change in the code would be the correct way to lessen
Bitcoin's emission, betrays an ignorance of how Bitcoin's code base works, and how changes to the protocol work.
Without going into elaborate details about the proof-of-work consensus mechanism,
we can summarize this point by saying that proof of work is to Bitcoin as the cerebral cortex is to humans.
The proof-of-work algorithm, among other benefits, makes Bitcoin invulnerable to cyber-attack
by colluding nation-states. This is why it offers the broad range of social impact benefits it does,
particularly to an exponentially growing community of users in the global south.
Without this mechanism, it would not be Bitcoin, it would not be a censorship-resistant form of
money, it would just be another altcoin.
The other important point about Bitcoin is that it is an open-source peer-to-peer technology.
Changes to the code are not governed by central powers, they are decided by the community by consensus.
There is a global network of Bitcoin miners, developers, and node owners.
If anyone feels that they have a code change that would benefit Bitcoin,
then the participatory democracy structure that is Bitcoin gives you the freedom to suggest that change,
and even make that change. Of course, being participatory democracy,
other users are free to use or ignore that change too.
Greenpeace USA have spent $5 million of Chris Larson's money, chairman of Ripple,
and the donor behind the Change the Code campaign.
Plus whatever money they have used from their own donor base to lobby for a change to the code.
The total number of node owners, developers, and miners who have taken up this suggestion so far is zero.
False and psychologically manipulative
neuroassociations, Bitcoin and Coal.
Coal kills, says the article, complete with the famous Skull of Satoshi emblem,
complete with a coal furnace in lieu of hair. Throughout the article, Greenpeace USA
attempts to neuroassociate Bitcoin with Coal, typically through imagery rather than evidence.
This association is, however, false. It is also psychologically manipulative.
An important context that is not mentioned in the article is that the global electrical grid
currently has Coal as its major fuel source. From our world and data, more than one-third of global
electricity comes from low carbon sources, but a lot less of total energy does.
Here we have oil 3.1%, Coal 36.7%, Gas 23.5%, Nuclear 10.4%, Hydro Power 15.8%,
and wind 5.3, Solar 2.7, Other Renewables 2.5. The total from fossil fuels is 63.3%,
whereas the total from low carbon is 36.7%.
This means that data centers, EVs, gaming technology, clothes dryers, house lighting,
electric heaters, smartphones, computers, electric stove tops, and a myriad of other
appliances and technology are predominantly powered by Coal.
Remarkably and ironically, Bitcoin, because of its unique ability to locate on-site at renewable
energy sites, finds itself the only global technology that is not powered by Coal, Bitcoin
Energy Sources chart. Gas 21.14%, Hydro 23.12%, Wind 13.98%, Nuclear 7.94%, Solar 4.98%, Coal
22.92%, Flared 1.23%, Other Renewable 2.40%.
How Did Greenpeace USA Arrive at Such Conclusions?
In Greenpeace USA's defense, they are reliant on the quality of journalism and academic research
for underpinning their conclusions. As is routinely the case in the first 10 to 15 years
of understanding a novel technology, this quality academic and journalistic work in the main channels
is yet to appear, as highlighted in a recent report by the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This is, it would appear, the rite of passage that any novel and disruptive technology must go
through. It is human nature to fear the unknown, and for both academics and journalists to vilify
first, seek to understand second. This is why the initial inquiry into a novel technology
has a history of being incorrect, often farcically so. The internet, for example, was famously
dismissed as being no more important to the economy than a fax machine by one prominent academic,
and lampooned by journalists as heralding the need to revive our coal industry,
a prediction made in ignorance of the exponential improvement in computer chip efficiency.
Similarly with Bitcoin, neither academics nor journalists yet have a deep and grounded
understanding of what Bitcoin is, something that is readily apparent in their work.
For example, as recently as July 2023, an academic study used data from 2018 to make the claim
that Bitcoin used 17 megajoules per dollar. Significant amount of electricity for a
electricity, for example, Krause and Tolleymat 2018, estimated that Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin,
and Monero mining consumed an average of 17, 7, 7, and 14 megajoules respectively to generate
one USD in value for the period of January 1st, 2016 through June 30th, 2018.
The authors appear unaware that in 2018, the market cap of Bitcoin was one third of what it is
today and the average joule per tera hash rating of machines were 5 to 10 times higher. The current
megajoule per dollar based on Bitcoin's current energy consumption and market cap is 0.72 megajoules
per dollar. In other words, the citation is out by a factor of 24X.
Writing about Bitcoin mining without understanding machine efficiency curves
is like making projections about the power consumption of the internet without understanding
the impact of Moore's law. It is a rookie's error, an error made in the first years of the
internet and now repeated in the first years of Bitcoin. Similarly, the peer review process
has not provided the normal protective rails to prevent flawed scholarship making its way into
academic journals because the peer reviewers share the same lack of domain expertise in Bitcoin
and Bitcoin mining as the authors themselves. It will take time for academic study to become
reliable and for journalism about Bitcoin to become reliable, just as it took a long time
for other technological innovations. These academic studies inform journalists who also
lack understanding about Bitcoin. These journalists inform the perspective of some environmental
groups. When all three communities lack a basic understanding of how Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining
works, then it is unsurprising that we should come up with conclusions and campaigns that are as
eye-raisingly wrong as the first wave of expert conclusions about other technologies.
There is not the slightest doubt that bicycle riding, if persisted in, leads to weakness of mind,
general lunacy and homicidal mania. The New York Times, 1894.
Conclusion Owing to its many inaccuracies, exclusions,
use of flawed source data, absence of evidence to support many assertions, lack of objective
evaluation of complete environmental impact, and evidence of strong presenter bias,
this report should be disregarded. We encourage Greenpeace USA, other environmental organizations,
journalists, and academics to start learning about the following subjects.
Proof of work What is a consensus mechanism, and why is it an important feature of a distributed ledger?
What problems does Bitcoin solve? What communities are using Bitcoin and why?
What role does Bitcoin currently play in enabling the acceleration of renewable energy?
What role can Bitcoin mining uniquely place in methane mitigation?
Trends What's happening with hash rate,
machine efficiency, and location of miners? Why do mining companies seek out stranded energy,
and why is it normally renewable? What advantages does Bitcoin mining have over other technologies
in helping grid load balancing, providing a first customer to off-grid renewables,
and reducing the curtailment of renewable energy?
What mistakes did the first generation of reports on Bitcoin mining make,
and how have subsequent reports improved upon these omissions and mistakes?
Why is wholesale energy, not price, the biggest driver for the types of miners used to mine Bitcoin?
The economics of Bitcoin mining Why Bitcoin mining is called a non-rival energy user?
What is the most important part of Bitcoin mining?
These areas are as fundamental to be able to write authoritatively about Bitcoin
as an understanding of climate models is to the understanding of climate science.
On a positive note, several university courses are now starting to emerge on Bitcoin,
where students will be properly grounded in their understanding of the above subjects.
There are three such universities in Switzerland alone.
There is also evidence that more and more journalists are starting to research at Bitcoin
before writing about it. Out of the first 30 articles published in the mainstream media
on Bitcoin and ESG during 2023, 24 of them were positive evaluations.
These measures will improve the quality of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining research,
and help end the era of vilification through lack of understanding,
that all novel and disruptive technologies seemingly must pass through.
And that's a wrap on this Bitcoin out loud read of Daniel Batten's Greenpeace Rebuttal.
Daniel's Rebuttal is linked in the show notes and you can follow him at dsbatten on Twitter.
My name is Walker and this is the Bitcoin Podcast. If you want to follow me on Twitter,
go to attitcoinpodcast and at Walker America. You can also find me on Noster by going to
primal.net slash Walker. Bitcoin is scarce. There will only ever be 21 million,
but Bitcoin podcasts are abundant. So thank you for spending your scarce time to listen to
another fucking Bitcoin podcast. Until next time, stay free.