Bitcoin’s environmental impact remains controversial, with critics questioning its energy use, but ESG researcher Daniel Batten disputes some of those claims.
In a thread on Saturday X, ESG researcher Daniel Batten said nine common criticisms of Bitcoin mining’s energy use are contradicted by peer-reviewed research and grid-level data.
“With every early disruptive technology comes claims based on lack of understanding, lack of data, and fear of the unknown,” Batten said.
In November, Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for investing a portion of its endowment in BTC, calling it a “fake currency and money laundering tool that is also an environmental disaster.”
In July, Bloomberg claimed that Bitcoin was “hogging up electricity meant for the world’s poor.”
Some environmental researchers dispute these conclusions, arguing that indirect emissions and opportunity costs associated with mining remain difficult to quantify.
Myth: Bitcoin is resource intensive and destabilizes the power grid
He said the assumption that Bitcoin consumes large amounts of energy, water and e-waste with each transaction is simply “not true.”
Batten claims this has already been debunked by four peer-reviewed studies that concluded that resource usage is unrelated to transaction volume.
Batten cited peer-reviewed research compiled in the University of Cambridge’s 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report, which found that Bitcoin’s energy usage is largely independent of transaction volume. “This means we can scale Bitcoin transaction volume without increasing resource usage.”
Second, the claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes the power grid is also a myth; in fact, the opposite is true: it stabilizes the power grid through flexible load management, especially in renewable energy-heavy power grids like Texas.
Bitcoin mining does not increase electricity costs
He also said there is no data to support the claim that everyday consumers are paying more for electricity because of Bitcoin miners.
“There is no evidence in the data or in peer-reviewed research to support that claim,” he added, highlighting several examples where Bitcoin mining has been found to help lower prices.
Related: Bitcoin Mining 2026 Prediction: AI Turnabout, Margin Pressure, and Fight for Survival
Fourth, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comparing Bitcoin’s energy use to the nation as a whole is misleading because the focus should be on switching energy sources, not reducing usage.
“The global computing 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 produces no direct emissions, only Scope 2 emissions from electricity use.
“In fact, Bitcoin mining is the only global industry with robust third-party data showing it exceeds the 50% sustainable energy threshold.”
Proof of stake is not necessarily better
Batten also challenged the idea that proof-of-stake Ethereum (ETH) is better for the environment than proof-of-work Bitcoin (BTC). Claiming that this makes PoS more environmentally friendly is “a mistake that confuses energy use with harm,” he said.
In 2022, an article in the Australian Financial Review on Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake stated that blockchain used to use as much electricity as Chile.
But Batten argues that PoW has many benefits, including mitigating methane, stabilizing the energy grid, increasing renewable energy capacity and monetizing wasted renewable energy.
Mr Batten argued that while landfill and flared gas could technically be used for other purposes, such alternatives had so far proven economically unviable on a large scale.
Bitcoin mining facilitates the use of renewable energy
The claim that Bitcoin mining deprives other users of renewable energy is also false, he said, and evidence shows the opposite.
“Many people now have access to renewable energy as a direct result of Bitcoin mining,” Batten reported, citing a project called Gridless in Africa that has provided renewable energy to an estimated 28,000 people.
Finally, according to ESG experts, the argument that “Bitcoin mining is wasting energy” is a myth, as it prevents the waste of renewable energy, and studies have shown that over 90% of solar and wind utilization is achieved. Batten cited a peer-reviewed study by Moghimi et al. Lai and You then found that Bitcoin mining significantly reduced renewable energy curtailment and improved microgrid economics.
“Furthermore, ‘wasting energy’ is not an objective assessment, but a value judgment. It can only be argued that energy is being wasted if no benefit is produced for humanity in the process.”
magazine: Kane Warwick loses $50,000 ETH bet on Bitmine’s ‘1000x’ share plan: Hodler’s Digest
