Despite Bitcoin’s growing institutional adoption in 2025, its environmental impact remains widely misunderstood, according to ESG expert Daniel Batten.
- Myth 1: Bitcoin is resource-intensive and destabilizes power grids
- Myth 2: Bitcoin mining increases electricity costs
- Myth 3: Comparing Bitcoin’s energy use to countries is meaningful
- Proof-of-stake is not automatically greener
- Proof-of-work offers environmental and grid benefits
- Bitcoin mining promotes renewable energy usage
In a thread on X on Saturday, Batten highlighted nine common criticisms of Bitcoin mining’s energy use, noting that many are debunked by real-world data.
“Every nascent disruptive technology is accompanied by claims based on a lack of understanding, lack of data, and fear of the unknown,” Batten said.
Recent media coverage illustrates this perception gap. In November, the Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for investing part of its endowment in Bitcoin, calling it a “fake currency and money-laundering tool that is also an environmental catastrophe.” In July, Bloomberg claimed Bitcoin “devours the electricity meant for the world’s poor.”
Myth 1: Bitcoin is resource-intensive and destabilizes power grids
The notion that Bitcoin consumes excessive energy, water, or e-waste per transaction is “not true,” Batten said. Four peer-reviewed studies have shown that Bitcoin’s resource use is independent of transaction volume, meaning the network can scale without increasing energy or material consumption.
Similarly, the claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes power grids is a myth. On the contrary, mining can help stabilize grids through flexible load management, particularly on renewable-heavy networks such as those in Texas.
Myth 2: Bitcoin mining increases electricity costs
Data does not support the idea that Bitcoin miners drive up electricity prices for everyday consumers, Batten said. Multiple studies have shown that mining can even help lower electricity costs by optimizing grid usage.
Myth 3: Comparing Bitcoin’s energy use to countries is meaningful
Comparisons of Bitcoin’s energy consumption to entire countries are misleading. The focus should be on the transition to cleaner energy sources rather than reducing overall usage, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
For example, Morningstar reported in November that Bitcoin’s global computing network consumes more energy than Thailand or Poland. However, statements claiming Bitcoin’s carbon footprint is “very high” are also flawed, since mining generates no direct emissions—only scope-2 emissions from electricity usage.
“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 automatically greener
Batten also challenged the common belief that proof-of-stake (PoS) Ethereum is inherently better for the environment than proof-of-work (PoW) Bitcoin. He said framing PoS as more environmentally friendly “errs by conflating energy use with actual harm.”
For context, a 2022 Australian Financial Review article noted that before Ethereum’s transition to PoS, the network consumed as much electricity as Chile.
Proof-of-work offers environmental and grid benefits
Batten argued that proof-of-work (PoW) mining provides several advantages, including mitigating methane emissions, stabilizing energy grids, increasing renewable energy capacity, and monetizing otherwise wasted energy.
While it’s technically true that landfill and flare gas could be used for purposes other than Bitcoin mining, Batten explained that it is economically infeasible—only Bitcoin’s economics make stranded methane a viable energy source.
Bitcoin mining promotes renewable energy usage
Contrary to claims that mining diverts renewable energy from other users, evidence suggests the opposite. “Many people now have access to renewable energy who otherwise would not have, as a direct result of Bitcoin mining,” Batten said. He cited the Gridless project in Africa, which has delivered renewable power to an estimated 28,000 people.
Finally, the notion that “Bitcoin mining wastes energy” is also misleading. Studies show that PoW mining can prevent renewable energy waste, achieving over 90% utilization of solar and wind power in certain cases, according to Batten.
“Further, ‘wasting energy’ is not an objective assessment, but a value judgment. One can only claim that energy is wasted if no good to humanity is produced in the process.”
