Environmental

Despite Bitcoin’s rising institutional adoption in 2025, its environmental impact is still being misunderstood and misinterpreted by many, according to ESG expert Daniel Batten. 

In an X thread on Saturday, Batten said there are nine common criticisms of Bitcoin mining’s energy use that can be debunked by real-world data.

“Every nascent disruptive technology is accompanied by claims that are based on lack of understanding, lack of data, and a fear of something unknown,” said Batten.

In November, the Dow Jones lambasted Harvard University for investing some of its endowment in BTC, labelling it as a “fake currency and money-laundering tool that is also an environmental catastrophe.“

In July, Bloomberg claimed that Bitcoin “devours the electricity meant for the world’s poor.”

Myth: Bitcoin is resource-intensive, destabilizes power grids

The premise that Bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, water, and e-waste per transaction is simply “not true,” he said. 

Batten argues this has already been debunked by four peer-reviewed studies concluding that resource use is independent of transaction volume. “This means that Bitcoin transaction volume can scale without increasing resource use.”

Second, the claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes power grids is also a myth, as it actually does the opposite — stabilizing grids through flexible load management, especially on renewable-heavy grids like those in Texas.

Bitcoin mining does not increase power costs

There is also no data to support the claim that everyday consumers pay more for electricity because of Bitcoin miners, he said. 

“Neither in the data, nor in a peer-reviewed study is there evidence to support the claim,” he added, highlighting several instances when Bitcoin mining has been found to help lower prices. 

Related: Bitcoin mining’s 2026 reckoning: AI pivots, margin pressure and a fight to survive

Fourth, comparing Bitcoin’s energy usage to whole countries is misleading because the focus should be on energy source transformation, not the reduction of usage, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The global computing network used to support Bitcoin already uses more energy than Thailand or Poland —yes, really,” reported Morningstar in November.  

“Bitcoin’s carbon footprint is very high,” is also a flawed statement because mining has no direct emissions, only scope-2 emissions from electricity usage,” said Batten. 

“Bitcoin mining is, in fact, the only global industry for which there is robust, third-party data showing it has crossed the 50% sustainable energy threshold.”

Proof-of-stake is not necessarily better

Batten also argued with the notion that proof-of-stake Ethereum (ETH) is better for the environment than proof-of-work Bitcoin (BTC). Claiming this makes PoS more environmentally friendly “errs by conflating energy use with harm,” he said. 

In 2022, an article from the Australian Financial Review about Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake described the blockchain as previously using as much electricity as Chile.

However, Batten argues PoW offers many benefits, such as the ability to mitigate methane, provide stability to the energy grid, increase renewable energy capacity, and monetize wasted renewable energy.

The argument that landfill and flare gas could be used for things other than Bitcoin mining is “technically true,” but economically infeasible since only Bitcoin’s economics make stranded methane viable, Batten argued. 

Bitcoin mining promotes renewable energy usage

The claim that Bitcoin mining takes away renewable energy from other users is also false, as evidence shows the opposite, he said. 

“Many people now have access to renewable energy who otherwise would not have, as a direct result of Bitcoin mining,” reported Batten, citing a project called Gridless in Africa, which has delivered renewable energy to an estimated 28,000 people.