Bitcoin's environmental impact stays controversial as critics query its energy consumption, while ESG researcher Daniel Batten disputes several of those claims.
In a thread on Saturday
“Every emerging disruptive technology comes with claims based on a lack of information, an absence of knowledge and a fear of the unknown,” said Batten.
In November, Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for investing a part of its capital in BTC, calling it a “counterfeit currency and money laundering tool that can be an environmental disaster.”
In July, Bloomberg claimed that Bitcoin was “gobbling up electricity meant for the world’s poor.”
Some environmental researchers dispute these conclusions, arguing that indirect emissions and opportunity costs related to mining remain difficult to quantify.
Myth: Bitcoin is resource intensive and destabilizes power grids
The assumption that Bitcoin uses quite a lot of energy, water and e-waste per transaction is just “not true,” he said.
Batten argues that this has already been refuted by 4 peer-reviewed studies that concluded that resource consumption is independent of transaction volume.
Batten cited a peer-reviewed study summarized within the University of Cambridge's Digital Mining Industry Report 2025 that found Bitcoin's energy consumption is essentially independent of transaction volume. “This implies that Bitcoin transaction volume might be scaled without increasing resource consumption.”
Second, the claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes power grids can be a myth, because it actually does the alternative – stabilizing grids through flexible load management, especially in renewable energy-heavy grids like those in Texas.
Bitcoin mining doesn’t increase electricity costs
There can be no data to support the claim that on a regular basis consumers are paying more for electricity due to Bitcoin miners, he said.
“There isn’t any evidence in either the information or a peer-reviewed study to support this claim,” he added, pointing to several cases where Bitcoin mining was found to assist drive down prices.
Fourth, comparing Bitcoin's energy consumption to the energy consumption of entire countries is misleading because, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the main focus ought to be on transforming energy sources, not reducing consumption.
“The global computer network used to support Bitcoin already uses more energy than Thailand or Poland – yes, really,” Morningstar reported in November.
Batten also disputed claims that Bitcoin has a “high carbon footprint,” arguing that mining doesn’t cause direct emissions and only ends in Scope 2 emissions from electricity consumption.
“In fact, Bitcoin mining is the one global industry that has robust third-party data showing that it has exceeded the 50 percent sustainable energy threshold.” The intensity of Bitcoin mining emissions is decreasing. Source: Daniel Batten
Proof-of-Stake is just not necessarily higher
Batten also disputed the notion that proof-of-stake Ethereum (ETH) is best for the environment than proof-of-work Bitcoin (BTC). The claim that this makes PoS more environmentally friendly “is mistaken by confusing energy consumption with harm,” he said.
In 2022, an Australian Financial Review article about Ethereum's transition to proof-of-stake described how the blockchain previously used as much electricity as Chile.
Screenshot of a 2022 article in regards to the Ethereum merger. Source: AFR
However, Batten argues that PoW offers many advantages, akin to the power to scale back methane, ensure stability within the energy grid, increase renewable energy capability and monetize wasted renewable energy.
Batten argued that while landfill and flare gas could technically be used for other purposes, such alternatives had to this point proven to be economically unviable.
Bitcoin mining promotes using renewable energy
The claim that Bitcoin mining deprives other users of renewable energy can be false because the evidence shows the alternative, he said.
“Many people now have access to renewable energy that they otherwise wouldn’t have, as a direct results of Bitcoin mining,” Batten reported, pointing to a project called Gridless in Africa that has provided renewable energy to an estimated 28,000 people.
Finally, the argument that “Bitcoin mining wastes energy” is a myth since it prevents the waste of renewable energy and, based on the ESG expert, in studies it achieves over 90% of solar and wind use. Batten cited peer-reviewed research from Moghimi et al. and Lai and You, who found that Bitcoin mining significantly reduced renewable energy curtailment and improved the economics of microgrids.
“Furthermore, 'waste of energy' is just not an objective assessment, but a worth judgment. One can only claim that energy is being wasted if nothing good for humanity is being achieved.”
