Bitcoin’s environmental impact remains contested as critics question its energy use, while ESG researcher Daniel Batten disputes several of those claims.
In a Saturday X thread, ESG researcher Daniel Batten said nine common criticisms of Bitcoin mining’s energy use are contradicted by peer-reviewed studies and grid-level 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.”
Some environmental researchers dispute these conclusions, arguing that indirect emissions and opportunity costs linked to mining remain difficult to quantify.
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.
Batten cited peer-reviewed research summarized in the University of Cambridge’s 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report, which found Bitcoin’s energy use is largely 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.
Batten also challenged claims that Bitcoin has a “high carbon footprint,” arguing that mining produces no direct emissions and results only in 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 necessarily better
Batten also disputed 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.
Batten argued that while landfill and flare gas could technically be used for other purposes, such alternatives have so far proven economically infeasible at scale.
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.
Finally, the argument that “Bitcoin mining wastes energy” is a myth because it prevents renewable energy waste, achieving over 90% of solar and wind utilization in studies, according to the ESG expert. Batten cited peer-reviewed research by Moghimi et al. and Lai and You, which found Bitcoin mining significantly reduced renewable energy curtailment and improved microgrid economics.
“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.”
Magazine: Kain Warwick loses $50K ETH bet, Bitmine’s ‘1000x’ share plan: Hodler’s Digest
