Chaos or Tyranny? Freedom tech fixes this.

![Chaos, Order, and Freedom](https://www.discreetlog.com/content/images/2023/10/flowchart.png)

**Humanity's Natural State Is Chaos**
Without order there is chaos. Humans competing with each other for scarce resources naturally leads to conflict until one group achieves significant power and instates a "monopoly on violence."

**Power Brings Stability**
Power has always been the key means to achieve stability in societies. Centralized power can be incredibly effective in addressing issues such as crime, poverty, and social unrest efficiently. Unfortunately this power is often abused and corrupted.

**Centralized Power Breeds Tyranny**
Centralized power often leads to tyrannical rule. When a select few individuals hold control over a society, they tend to become corrupted. Centralized power structures often lack accountability and transparency, and rely too heavily on trust.

**Distributed Power Cultivates Freedom**
New technology that empowers individuals provide us the ability to rebuild societies from the bottom up. Strong individuals that can defend and provide for themselves will help build strong local communities on a similar foundation. The result is power being distributed throughout society rather than held by a select few.

**In the short term, relying on trust and centralized power is an easy answer to mitigating chaos, but freedom tech tools provide us the ability to build on top of much stronger distributed foundations that provide stability while also cultivating individual freedom.**

**The solution starts with us. Empower yourself. Empower others. A grassroots freedom tech movement scaling one person at a time.**

* * *

**_If you found this post helpful support my work with [**_bitcoin_**](https://geyser.fund/project/citadel?ref=discreetlog.com)._**

![Chaos, Order, and Freedom](https://werunbtc.com/donate.png)


Bitcoin “Crossing the Chasm” and the DEATH OF ENERGY MISINFORMATION

I am an impact investor, more recently specializing in climatetech. Before that I was I ran a technology company. These experiences gave me some insights into the challenges that all new technologies face in achieving mainstream adoption. Bitcoin currently faces this same challenge. Let’s zoom in to where the chasm could be crossed, and what currently is holding it back. There is 65 Trillion of institutional investment that wants to invest in bitcoin but thinks they can’t (30 Trillion in impact funds, and another 35 Trillion in Sovereign Funds excluding Central Banks). The reason they think they can’t is they believe Bitcoin is a bad ESG story. This article investigates this claim in depth, against the backdrop of other disruptive technologies, so we can better spot trends, and filter out likely good information from likely misinformation. When I first heard the claim that Bitcoin could be positive for the environment, as an environmental campaigner and climatetech investor I was skeptical. After considerable due diligence however, I realized that there was a strong evidential basis to this claim, which I outline here. This question if very important, if not the most important question Bitcoin’s supporters must answer to the next group of potential Bitcoin adopters, because the “early majority” care deeply about environmental impact. In order that Bitcoin “crosses the chasm” from early adopters to the early majority, addressing Bitcoin’s (true) environmental impact must be addressed. There is no bypass, no shortcut for this. Unless and until this issue is addressed, Bitcoin will not “cross the chasm”. In Bitcoin’s adoption curve, the estimated 4.7% who hold Bitcoin are the early adopters. The next wave includes institutional investors, which in turn includes sovereign funds and ESG funds. They are the early majority. The early adopters tend to be highly suspicious of mainstream media. However the Early Majority are only somewhat skeptical. As a result, they have different beliefs about Bitcoin today. Here is a sample of statements that people who interface with, or sit on the Compliance Divisions and ESG Investment Committees of Sovereign Wealth Funds shared with me recently about Bitcoin. I have limited knowledge about Bitcoin other than “it’s bad for the environment, don’t touch.” “It’s conflicting with the idea of a Central Digital Currency so it can be very confusing for someone who’s not in the space” “We have other issues we have to solve before we think about Bitcoin” “I’ve heard of a lot of backlash against Bitcoin because of criminal activity and the dark web” “It’s using so much water. It’s using drinking water.” While these messages are not anchored in fact, they do represent the current opinion-set. Existing Bitcoin proponents must meet these people where they are at if they are to have any hope of changing this opinion-set, no matter how good the data. There are 3 stages to shifting these perspectives so that that early majority can invest in Bitcoin without value conflict Screening out noise Identifying false signal Reading pure signal Let’s address each in turn. 1. Noise Reduction The best way we can clear most of the noise around Bitcoin is not to start with Bitcoin, but to understand something I learnt while running my first technology company: if you’re going to bring a disruptive technology to the planet, you better be prepared for a lot of gaslighting from the people you disrupt. This has happened to every disruptive tech since the telegraph in an unbroken chain of 21 technologies across 160 years. Let’s zoom in. Here’s some samples of how disruptive technologies and devices have been greeted through in the last 160 years. As we can see, long before Bitcoin was labelled by the media as an existential threat to humanity, the teddy bear was! Let’s zoom in a little more. I could have chosen anyone one of 21 industries but have chose two that like bitcoin disrupted multiple industries. The first was the bicycle. When the bicycle first rose to prominence in the 1890s, it disrupted horse drawn transport, riding apparel, public transit and the railway industry. As the disrupted industries launched their counteroffensive, new junk science came in almost immediately. Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and academics started referring to four invented conditions you that you could supposedly get by riding a bicycle This created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions. Source The prevalence of the term “bicycle face” serves as a guide as to when misinformation about the bicycle peaked, and how long it took to eventually die out. source: Google Ngram Viewer The bicycle was no one off event. The response to another technology that disrupt multiple industries, the radio, followed an almost identical pattern. Immediately after the radio began rising to prominence in the 1920s, junk science about the radio was reported in the mainstream media. The radio was blamed for everything from jailbreaks to snowstorms. Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and other authority figures started referring to four conditions that you could supposedly get by listening to the radio. Once again, this created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions. source: pessimistsarchive.org The chart on radio misinformation in mainstream media took on an uncannily similar shape to the earlier bicycle misinformation chart: an initial peak around 7 years after inception, but then a long tail with several smaller peaks within that tail. The similarity is even more striking when we view the charts side by side. Bitcoin’s journey has been almost identical to that of the bicycle and the radio. Bitcoin disrupts (at least) four industries: Central Banks, Banking, The Gold Industry and Remittance Payments. Bitcoin has been met with similar junk science, as we will investigate in the next section “false signal”, which has again created the environment where policy-makers and regulators who rely heavily on mainstream news sources for information have felt it appropriate to call for bans and restrictions. We are currently about here in the media cycle around Bitcoin and energy. The key takeout is this, the early majority does not have to suddenly trust the media as little as the early adopters. They simply need to see that trusting mainstream media sources for accurate reporting on a disruptive technology during the first 16 years is, based on history, an extremely risky approach. Seeing Bitcoin as just another disruptive technology, which inevitably follows the same “rite of passage” towards eventual acceptable after an elongated baptism of misinformation fire can help the early majority screen out 80% of the noise about Bitcoin, and regain the intellectual curiosity to take an objective look at Bitcoin. Step two: identify false signal In Radio and the Bicycle’s case the false signal was supplied by medics. In Bitcoin’s case it was a data a see scientist named Alex de Vries who in May 2018 wrote a five-page commentary called Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem The word commentary is important. According to Nature, commentaries are shorter, have a lighter review process and generally reflect the author’s perspective, rather than reporting new empirical data. De Vries’s article was a commentary, and the perspective he put forward was “We can measure Bitcoin’s use of energy per transaction to show that the Bitcoin network cannot scale without vastly increasing emissions. His commentary was a hit. In 2017 there was 1 article on Bitcoin’s energy usage. In 2018, the year of de Vries’ commentary, there were more than 400. The problem is that his perspective was invalid because Bitcoin’s energy use does not come from its transactions, meaning it could handle 1000 times more transactions, yet use no more energy. Cambridge University called the per transaction measure “not a meaningful metric”. But the media and other authors kept citing it anyway. Then the regulators, Central Banks, and NGOs joined them. The per transaction metric was refuted a further four times, this time in academic journals (Masenet et al, Dittmar et al, Sedlmeir et al and Sai & Vranken). But the metric not only kept on spreading, it mutated. Specifically, energy per transaction mutated into three other variants. Emissions per transaction eWaste per transaction Water use per transaction All three were new variants of the original strain stemmed directly from new commentaries or papers authored by Alex de Vries. De Vries under his own name or that of his blog Digiconomist, became the most frequently cited researcher in the media. His commentary was the origin point for every academic article on Bitcoin’s environmental impact over the next five years, which have now amassed collectively over 4500 citations. In the Whitehouse’s 2022 report on cryptomining, de Vries/digiconomist was referenced not just more than, but four times more than anyone else. He was also the most cited author in GreenpeaceUSAs ChangeTheCode campaign. There are two fundamental issues with metric upon which this narrative was built. The first is as we have said that there is actually no causal connection between transactions and Bitcoin’s energy consumption, meaning the network can easily scale its transaction volume without adding to emissions. Just as it’s been doing over the last 4 years already, as we can see from tracking the pink emissions line in the chart below, where hashrate (orange) has increased eight-fold and price (blue) has increased six-fold, but emissions have remained static over a full four year cycle. The second issue is “semantic ambiguity”. Here’s an everyday example of how semantic ambiguity can mislead. Imagine I agree to pay you one million dollars for a job. You finish the job, ask for payment and I send you one million Zimbabwean dollars. You would probably feel aggrieved. Just as “one million dollars” has a very different meaning based on location, so does the word “transaction”. In the traditional finance world, a transaction means a ledger entry. In the Bitcoin world, a single blockchain transaction can contain over 2000 traditional transactions, and using the layer-2 network (Lightning network) billions of traditional financial transactions. Just as the idea that radio waves could shatter windows, kill birds or trigger snowstorms is now viewed as absurd, ten years from now people will be looking back at us, and these news reports that a single Bitcoin transaction could cost $100 in electricity, create two cellphones of ewaste, drain a swimming pool, emit 3 households of co2, and and say “those crazy people in the 20s, did they really believe that junk science about Bitcoin & Energy in the media? Surely not.” Yet this false signal has helped persuade a large number of impact investors, regulators and environmentalists away from adopting Bitcoin. I was almost a casualty. Part 3: Pure Signal In the last 2 years, something unexpected and remarkable happened. The quality of academic reporting on Bitcoin has now improved not just a little bit, but beyond all recognition, across a range of metrics – articles replaced commentaries, datasets are no longer anecdotal, and methodologies are now anchored in how the blockchain works. As a result, we are now getting a pure signal in stereo, both from academic consensus(10 of the last 11 papers on bitcoin and energy) and those in the field who’ve observed bitcoin firsthand. And the signal we are hearing is that Bitcoin solves major environmental problems, stabilizes the grid while providing a rare profitable path to destroy one of our most potent greenhouse gases. And the media is catching on and catching up. Media coverage on Bitcoin and energy has dropped away. And the remaining articles are now mostly picking up on the pure signal. At the same time, the eWaste issue was debunked with ERS, one of the world’s top electronics recyclers stating that Bitcoin mining units are “100% recyclable. None of the parts go into a landfill. They are easier than other electronics to recycle because they don’t have the same toxic metals”. We also discovered that far from creating water scarcity, Bitcoin was helping to resolve it in dry countries including UAE, where Bitcoin mining company MARA is recycling heat from Bitcoin mining units to run water desalination plants more efficiently, one of just 8 examples of how Bitcoin heat gets recycled. The concept that Bitcoin was only used by criminals … was laid to rest by the US Treasury, who in their 2024 National Money Laundering Report stated “the use of virtual assets for money laundering continues to remain far below that of fiat currency” So who is using Bitcoin? Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation showed 19 humanitarian use cases for bitcoin, already likely positively impacting over 100M people, most of whom are unbanked, in energy poverty, refugees, or experiencing hyperinflation. He documented these humanitarian benefits in a recent conference address. There are now 21 documented environmental benefits to Bitcoin. We won’t go into all 21 here, but here are a few highlights. Building on the Cambridge model, the Digital Assets Research Institute showed that Since 2021, Bitcoin has become the world’s most sustainably powered industry. As of Nov 2024, Bitcoin Mining has risen to 56.75% sustainable energy powered. It is also the industry with the lowest emission intensity. That means that Bitcoin is now likely reducing net emissions by replacing their fossil fuel dependent prequels: banking as a medium of exchange, and gold as a store of value. Numerous studies, including this Cornell study from decorated scientist Fengqi You, found the same thing the grid owners found, that Bitcoin mining is a buyer for wasted renewable energy generated at a time or in a place other consumers cannot use it, making the renewable generator more profitable. The profit is reinvested to build more solar and wind power faster, accelerating the renewable transition. Carbon Debt and Payback Period Outside the climatetech sector, most people don’t realize that all climatetech starts off emitting more than it offsets. So as a climatetech investor, I’m interested in the net emission reduction potential and the payback period. Solar had a carbon debt for 57 years. Carbon sequestration’s carbon debt looks on track to be similar. The companies we invest in, we aim for under 30 years. Bitcoin, we estimate will be ~ 23yrs, less than half the time it took solar. But this is what excites me the most. Bitcoin mining can do something that other industries cannot do at scale, it can profitably use stranded methane as a fuel source that would otherwise have vented into the air. By destroying methane, a potent gas 84x more warming over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide, Bitcoin mining helps meet the UNs methane reduction goals without need for government incentives. The UN has called methane reduction our strongest lever to reduce climate change in the next 25 years. Unlike any other technologies, Bitcoin can profitably mitigate methane in any jurisdiction without waiting for political will. One of our 3 major storehouses of climate-change causing methane is landfills. Unreported by the media, there are now 5 Bitcoin mining companies on landfills and a total of 29 Bitcoin mining companies overall profitably carbon negative destroying methane emissions from landfills, oil fields and farms. Collectively they already mitigate 7% of the bitcoin network’s emissions. When will it reach 100%? 35 mid-sized venting landfills is all it takes to take the entire Bitcoin network carbon negative. This is something no industry has ever achieved without offsets. Bitcoin Mining and Landfills Peter Drucker once said “the best way to predict the future is to create it. So my third climatetech fund is an infrastructure fund that invests in Bitcoin mining companies using landfill gas for power. They are literally turning trash into digital gold. And because they destroy a greenhouse gas, they also generate carbon credits, which improves everyone’s returns. The landfill owner turns an environmental hazard into money. The Bitcoin mining company gets power at the bottom third of the cost curve. And as the infrastructure financiers, we get the returns of a CCC-rated asset class with the risk profile of a BB-rated one. But more importantly, this mitigates 45 times more emissions per dollar invested than the equivalent investment into photovoltaics. Summary Misunderstanding and misinformation is not new, it is the price you pay for being a very disruptive technology. Bitcoin, like all nascent disruptive technologies has followed the same rite of passage of initially being misunderstood by the masses, understood by the few. Eventually, this information asymmetry will be corrected and the masses will wish they saw Bitcoin unencumbered by the noise and false signal earlier. Bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the last 10 years by far, and for the reasons outlined above, I expect it to be the best ESG asset of the next 10 years. If it can achieve this, it will not only have “crossed the chasm”, it will be approaching the ubiquity of the Internet; something entirely possible given its current growth rate.

I am an impact investor, more recently specializing in climatetech. Before that I was I ran a technology company. These experiences gave me some insights into the challenges that all new technologies face in achieving mainstream adoption.

Bitcoin currently faces this same challenge. Let’s zoom in to where the chasm could be crossed, and what currently is holding it back.

There is **65** Trillion of institutional investment that wants to invest in **bitcoin** but thinks they can’t ([30 Trillion](https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/insights/sustainable-finance/esg-aum-set-to-top-40-trillion-by-2030-anchor-capital-markets/) in impact funds, and another 35 Trillion in Sovereign Funds excluding Central Banks).

The reason they think they can’t is they believe **Bitcoin** is a bad ESG story. This article investigates this claim in depth, against the backdrop of other disruptive technologies, so we can better spot trends, and filter out likely good information from likely misinformation. When I first heard the claim that Bitcoin could be positive for the environment, as an environmental campaigner and climatetech investor I was skeptical. After considerable due diligence however, I realized that there was a strong evidential basis to this claim, which I outline here.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-19-at-11.54.49-AM-1024x633.png)

This question if very important, if not the most important question Bitcoin’s supporters must answer to the next group of potential Bitcoin adopters, because the “early majority” care deeply about **environmental impact**.

In order that Bitcoin “crosses the chasm” from early adopters to the early majority, addressing Bitcoin’s (true) environmental impact must be addressed. There is no bypass, no shortcut for this. Unless and until this issue is addressed, Bitcoin will not “cross the chasm”.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.41.21-PM-1024x519.png)

**In** Bitcoin’s adoption curve, the estimated [4.7%](https://woocharts.com/bitcoin-total-users/) who hold Bitcoin are the early adopters. The **next wave** includes institutional investors, which in turn includes sovereign funds and ESG funds. They are the early majority. The early adopters tend to be highly suspicious of mainstream media. However the Early Majority are only somewhat skeptical. As a result, they have different beliefs about Bitcoin today.

Here is a sample of statements that people who interface with, or sit on the Compliance Divisions and ESG Investment Committees of Sovereign Wealth Funds shared with me recently about Bitcoin.

_I have limited knowledge about Bitcoin other than “it’s bad for the environment, don’t touch.”_

_“It’s conflicting with the idea of a Central Digital Currency so it can be very confusing for someone who’s not in the space”_

_“We have other issues we have to solve before we think about Bitcoin”_

_“I’ve heard of a lot of backlash against Bitcoin because of criminal activity and the dark web”_

_“It’s using so much water. It’s using drinking water.”_

While these messages are not anchored in fact, they do represent the current opinion-set. Existing Bitcoin proponents must meet these people where they are at if they are to have any hope of changing this opinion-set, no matter how good the data.

**There are 3 stages to shifting these perspectives so that that early majority can invest in Bitcoin without value conflict**

*   **Screening** out noise
*   **Identifying** false signal
*   **Reading** pure signal

Let’s address each in turn.

1\. **Noise Reduction**
-----------------------

The best way we can clear most of the noise around Bitcoin is not to start with Bitcoin, but to understand something I learnt while running my first technology company: if you’re going to bring a disruptive technology to the planet, you better be prepared for a lot of gaslighting from the people you disrupt.

This has happened to **every** disruptive tech since the telegraph in an unbroken chain of 21 technologies across 160 years.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.54.32-PM-1024x572.png)

Let’s zoom in. Here’s some samples of how disruptive technologies and devices have been greeted through in the last 160 years.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.56.02-PM-1024x589.png)

As we can see, long before **Bitcoin** was labelled by the media as an existential threat to humanity, the teddy bear was!

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.56.33-PM-1024x563.png)

Let’s zoom in a little more. I could have chosen anyone one of 21 industries but have chose two that like bitcoin disrupted multiple industries.

The first was the bicycle. When the bicycle first rose to prominence in the 1890s, it disrupted horse drawn transport, riding apparel, public transit and the railway industry.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.34.47-PM-1024x575.png)

As the disrupted industries launched their counteroffensive, new junk science came in almost immediately.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.35.52-PM-1024x569.png)

Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and academics started referring to four invented conditions you that you could supposedly get by riding a bicycle

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.36.57-PM-1024x568.png)

This created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.39.12-PM-1024x304.png)

[Source](https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/uhr/1999-v28-n1-uhr0646/1016555ar.pdf)

The prevalence of the term “bicycle face” serves as a guide as to when misinformation about the bicycle peaked, and how long it took to eventually die out.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.40.23-PM-1024x835.png)

**source**: [Google Ngram Viewer](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bicycle+face&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbicycle%20face%3B%2Cc0)

The bicycle was no one off event. The response to another technology that disrupt multiple industries, the radio, followed an almost identical pattern.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.44.31-PM-1024x571.png)

Immediately after the radio began rising to prominence in the 1920s, junk science about the radio was reported in the mainstream media. The radio was blamed for everything from jailbreaks to snowstorms.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.46.52-PM-1024x574.png)

Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and other authority figures started referring to four conditions that you could supposedly get by listening to the radio.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.50.08-PM-1024x573.png)

Once again, this created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.08.36-PM-1024x720.png)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.09.14-PM.png)

**source**: pessimistsarchive.org

The chart on radio misinformation in mainstream media took on an uncannily similar shape to the earlier bicycle misinformation chart: an initial peak around 7 years after inception, but then a long tail with several smaller peaks within that tail. The similarity is even more striking when we view the charts side by side.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.14.01-PM-1024x552.png)

Bitcoin’s journey has been almost identical to that of the bicycle and the radio. Bitcoin disrupts (at least) four industries: Central Banks, Banking, The Gold Industry and Remittance Payments.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.22.28-PM-1024x576.png)

Bitcoin has been met with similar junk science, as we will investigate in the next section “false signal”, which has again created the environment where policy-makers and regulators who rely heavily on mainstream news sources for information have felt it appropriate to call for bans and restrictions. We are currently about here in the media cycle around Bitcoin and energy.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.21.00-PM-1024x643.png)

The key takeout is this, the early majority does not have to suddenly trust the media as little as the early adopters. They simply need to see that trusting mainstream media sources for accurate reporting on a disruptive technology during the first 16 years is, based on history, an extremely risky approach.

Seeing Bitcoin as just another disruptive technology, which inevitably follows the same “rite of passage” towards eventual acceptable after an elongated baptism of misinformation fire can help the early majority screen out 80% of the noise about Bitcoin, and regain the intellectual curiosity to take an objective look at Bitcoin.

**Step two: identify false signal**
-----------------------------------

In Radio and the Bicycle’s case the false signal was supplied by medics. In Bitcoin’s case it was a data a see scientist named Alex de Vries who in May 2018 wrote a five-page commentary called Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-17-at-12.37.16-PM-1024x670.png)

The word commentary is


Rebuttal: Earthjustice report on Bitcoin Mining, Feb 2025

Original report: https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows This post argues that Earthjustice’s latest report on Bitcoin mining is significantly disconnected from both the scientific consensus and real-world evidence. By failing to engage with the latest research and developments, Earthjustice risks undermining efforts to leverage Bitcoin mining as a tool that benefits the environmental across a range of metrics. This rebuttal examines the inaccuracies in their report and highlights the growing body of evidence supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. For context: in recent times, Bitcoin has emerged as arguably the most important form of climatetech in enabling not one but four critical areas of climate justice. A large volume of peer reviewed research now confirms what Bitcoin mining companies, grid operators, energy experts, and the Bitcoin mining industry have been saying for some time: Bitcoin mining is essential to progress on these four critical areas 1. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the grid 2. Replace Fossil fuel based heat with electrically based heat 3. Increase the speed and profitability of R&D into new renewable energy projects 4. Urgently end three carbon-intensive practices (gas peaker plant proliferation, natural gas flaring, venting of landfill gas) source These are no longer theoretical benefits, as they were when Earthjustice first started reporting on Bitcoin mining: Finland is now supplying 2% of all district heat through recycled Bitcoin mining heat, replacing fossil fuel-dependent sources such as the burning of coal and peat. 29 Bitcoin mining operations use carbon negative sources such as flared gas or landfill gas for power. OTEC, a forgotten form of renewable energy has had a new lease of life. Finally, since Bitcoin mining moved onto the Texas grid, blackouts have been prevented, $18Billion of new gas peaker plant costs were averted, inflation adjusted electricity prices were kept stable (a rare phenomenon for jurisdictions with rapidly increasing renewable penetration), while solar/wind rose from 80 GW to 130 GW of generation capacity. source Heat recycled from Bitcoin mining rigs running on Finland’s 92% fossil-free grid is increasingly replacing 54.6% fossil-fuel dependent existing district heating sources in Finland The world has changed, leaving Earthjustice behind Earthjustice published their first anti-Bitcoin report in 2022. Since then, the world of Bitcoin mining has fundamentally changed in five major ways: 1. Scientific community puts its weight behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits Bitcoin mining has been shown to accelerate the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2023) obviate the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) stabilize the grid (Rudd et al, 2023) halve the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) accelerate renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024) reduce methane emissions from landfills (Sechrest et al, 2024) avert the need for expensive grid upgrades (Norris et al, 2025) with 14 out of the last 16 peer reviewed papers on Bitcoin and energy (87.5%) showing clear positive environmental externalities. 2. Sustainability media gets behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits Of the ten climate-focused media that are commenting on Bitcoin mining and energy, nine of them found strong environmental benefits (90%). 3. 180° turnaround in mainstream media reporting on Bitcoin mining Of the 14 media outlets still covering Bitcoin and energy, 12 are covering Bitcoin’s environmental benefits (85.7%) 4. Bitcoin’s sustainable energy proportion has increased from 49.1% to 56.7% source: Digital Assets Research Institute 5. Source findings of Earthjustice’s 2022 report debunked The work of Alex de Vries and authors who relied on his findings, which formed the basis of Earthjustice’s 2022 findings, has been discredited due to fundamental flaws in both data-gathering techniques and methodology. source: Sai & Vranken, 2023 Earthjustice has responded by spreading even more misinformation Earthjuistice has not revisited their 2022 position on Bitcoin mining. Rather, their approach mirrors tactics that disregard scientific consensus, which is concerning given the volume of peer-reviewed research supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. They have either ignored the scientific consensus, or dismissed the entire body of research as being the work of “vest interest groups” But not only has Earthjustice ignored the undisputed evidence of Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, they have put out more misinformation. The misinformation in Earthjustice’s 2025 report falls into three categories The very widely debunked claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining increases power prices The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining does not offer community benefits Let’s address each in turn. 1. Bitcoin and grid stability This claim demonstrates considerable ignorance about the large body of evidence showing that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids. The claim also reveals a severe lack of awareness about what Earthjustice’s peers in the environmental movement have been writing in climate media for some time. The key point is: Bitcoin does not destabilize grids. In fact, a mountain of peer-reviewed and real-world evidence shows that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids, enabling grid operators to integrate higher concentrations of variable renewable energy. For example: Lai et al states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid”. source Ibañez et al concludes “PoW mining emerges as an alternative that can provide additional income and ancillary services (auxiliary services designed to provide stability to the energy grid)”. source Menati et al found that “the flexibility of cryptocurrency mining loads plays a pivotal role in the reliability of electricity systems and the stability of electricity markets” and “cryptocurrency mining …is shown not to be detrimental to power grid reliability even with significant amounts at certain locations.” source A whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to stabilize grids, and decarbonize grids. source These findings correspond precisely to Texas’ grid operators own direct observations. “[Bitcoin mining operations] have found a way to come into the market and take some of that excess wind in offpeak periods. Then it can turn down whenever we need the power for other customers… And if a generator trips off line can very quickly respond to that frequency disruption and allow us to balance our grid more efficiently.” source: Brad Jones, Former Interim CEO, ERCOT. The early misinformation that bitcoin destabilizes grids is rarely recycled any more, with both mainstream and sustainability-focsed journalists increasingly reporting on how Bitcoin mining in fact has a stabilizing impact on Grids. 2. Bitcoin and electricity prices The Earthjustice report shows an eye-opening level of naivety about the relationship between Bitcoin mining electricity prices and the cost that other users pay for electricity, the argument basically runs like this “We found out that Bitcoin miners pay a low cost for electricity, so we postulate that this means other users are subsidizing them.” To anyone with a basic understanding of wholesale electricity markets, this demonstrates the risks of non-domain experts commenting outside their area of expertise. Not only is there no evidence, either real-world or in the academic literature for this claim, but there is a significant body of evidence to the contrary. For example, Brad Jones, Former CEO of Texas’ grid ERCOT observed that by creating a more competitive market for ancillary services and by finding a home for otherwise wasted wind energy, Bitcoin was “helping keep the cost of electricity low for all Texans” In September 2024, Norwegian residents realized that Bitcoin mining had for years been keeping their power prices 20% lower. After the Bitcoin mining operation left the grid, their prices instantly increased to meet the revenue shortfall. As for the claim “There are other types of Demand Response. We don’t need Bitcoin” As energy expert Tom Algie puts it “Turning off and providing demand response isn’t straightforward. Compensation for traditional DR assets; steel works, aluminium smelters etc, is astronomical. Bitcoin mining revenue is on par with electricity prices, so we don’t need much additional incentive to turn off. This coupled with the ability to be located anywhere, the Bitcoin mining load is one of the most cost effective ways to provide DR, FCAS and System Strength services. It also incentivises overbuild of renewables. Bitcoin miners are also building plenty of energy assets globally.” Further, Inflation-adjusted figures show no statistically significant rise or fall in either electricity or gas prices since Bitcoin mining came onto the ERCOT grid in Texas, giving support for ERCOT CEO Brad Jones’ observation that Bitcoin mining in fact “Helped keep the price of power low for all Texans.” The claim therefore seems to be a false attribution of the impact of high inflation from 2021-2023, to Bitcoin mining. There are now not one but five ways that Bitcoin mining has been shown to keep residential power prices low Creating a more competitive market for Demand Response services (Mitch Klee) Providing more revenue to the grid operators, thereby decreasing the cost burden to other users (Dan Roberts) Reducing costly curtailment payouts to VRE generators (MARA) Helping grid operators to delay the need for cost-prohibitive grid upgrades (Norris et al) Obviating the need for multi-billion dollar Gas peaker plant investment (Rian Dewhurst) Earthjustice’s habit of indulging in domain-naive speculative inference over consulting the existing large body of literature on Bitcoin mining should be viewed as a red flag to environmentalists, policymakers, regulators and others in the climate industry. All should give Earthjustice’s articles on Bitcoin mining a wide berth until there is a substantial improvement in their awareness of both the domain, and the prior body of literature germane to the subject they are addressing. 3. Bitcoin and community benefits While Earthjustice claims that Bitcoin mining fails to deliver significant community benefits, evidence from the Perryman Group and testimonials from local officials like Mayor Ward Roddam of Rockdale, Texas, demonstrate the opposite. Perryman’s report found that in the US alone, Bitcoin mining has created 31,000 jobs brought $4.1 billion in annual U.S. gross product helped stabilize the grid while offering a range of other direct community benefits Community benefits were found to be significant, and included strengthening local public services boosting school funding improving community well-being expanding career opportunities in high-tech fields Improving community infrastructure In Rockdale, one of the major Bitcoin mining hubs in Texas, the mayor confirmed these benefits were being observed: “Bitcoin miners are deeply invested in the communities where they work. [They] are among the largest taxpayers in … our local school district. These companies donate to local causes, including scholarships, police and fire departments, youth sports and … community events.” ~ Ward Roddam. Mayor, Rockdale Conclusion In this paper, two lawyers from Earthjustice have advanced the implausible theory that they know more about community impacts of Bitcoin mining than the residents and mayor of the town of Rockdale benefitted, more about the grid stabilization impacts of Bitcoin than five separate teams of energy experts who published peer reviewed research on this subject, and more about the impact of Bitcoin on cost to other grid users than the Grid operator himself. They have ignored the scientific consensus, the environmental consensus and even the media reporting in the liberal media on Bitcoin mining. While the Earthjustice report of 2022 was arguably forgivable, as none of these five shifts had occurred in our understanding of Bitcoin mining, to write such a report in 2025 reflects a lack of engagement with recent research and real-world evidence, which calls into question its credibility on this issue. But Earthjustice’s report is not just misguided, its irresponsible. As a climatetech investor, I am continually looking for landfill operators where bitcoin mining operations can be set up, because bitcoin mining is usually the only way to profitably mitigate landfill gas methane (a horrendous greenhouse gas). We face considerable pushback on an almost daily basis because landfill owners have read factually incorrect accounts of bitcoin mining’s environmental impact. Such uncritical appraisals slow down our efforts to mitigate methane. I also travel around the world encouraging renewable operators to use bitcoin mining for their otherwise wasted renewable energy, so that they can become more profitable, and pour that profit back into expanding their renewable operation faster. Unfortunately, my efforts to do this are severely compromised by the misinformation they have heard about Bitcoin mining that was circulated widely by Alex de Vries from 2018-2022, and which unfortunately you are still recirculating, and which despite your good intentions actually slow down the efforts of those seeking pragmatic solutions to advancing the green energy transition. By promoting misinformation, Earthjustice risks delaying the adoption of innovative solutions like Bitcoin mining, which have been shown to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, they risk delaying the point at which we will be able to phase out gas peaker plants, while increasing the chances that retail users of electricity will have to pay a premium for their power. It is important that anyone who chances upon Earthjustice’s report should know that they are an outlier in the environmental movement in that they are still publishing misinformation on Bitcoin mining in 2025. We urge Earthjustice to revisit its stance on Bitcoin mining in light of the latest scientific research and real-world evidence. By doing so, they can align their advocacy with the most effective strategies for achieving climate justice.

Original report: [https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows](https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows)

This post argues that Earthjustice’s latest report on Bitcoin mining is significantly disconnected from both the scientific consensus and real-world evidence. By failing to engage with the latest research and developments, Earthjustice risks undermining efforts to leverage Bitcoin mining as a tool that benefits the environmental across a range of metrics. This rebuttal examines the inaccuracies in their report and highlights the growing body of evidence supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits.

For context: in recent times, Bitcoin has emerged as arguably the most important form of climatetech in enabling not one but four critical areas of climate justice. A large volume of peer reviewed research now confirms what Bitcoin mining companies, grid operators, energy experts, and the Bitcoin mining industry have been saying for some time: Bitcoin mining is essential to progress on these four critical areas

**1\. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the grid**

**2\. Replace Fossil fuel based heat with electrically based heat**

**3\. Increase the speed and profitability of R&D into new renewable energy projects**

**4\. Urgently end three carbon-intensive practices** (gas peaker plant proliferation, natural gas flaring, venting of landfill gas)

[source](https://batcoinz.com/why-climate-action-doesnt-just-benefit-from-bitcoin-mining-it-requires-it/)

These are no longer theoretical benefits, as they were when Earthjustice first started reporting on Bitcoin mining:

Finland is now supplying [2% of all district heat](https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1872740512555315559) through recycled Bitcoin mining heat, replacing fossil fuel-dependent sources such as the burning of coal and peat. 29 Bitcoin mining operations use carbon negative sources such as flared gas or landfill gas for power. OTEC, a forgotten form of renewable energy has had a new lease of life. Finally, since Bitcoin mining moved onto the Texas grid, blackouts have been prevented, $18Billion of new gas peaker plant costs were averted, inflation adjusted electricity prices were kept stable (a rare phenomenon for jurisdictions with rapidly increasing renewable penetration), while solar/wind rose from 80 GW to 130 GW of generation capacity.

[source](https://batcoinz.com/why-climate-action-doesnt-just-benefit-from-bitcoin-mining-it-requires-it/)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screen-Shot-2025-02-23-at-8.56.17-PM-1024x726.png)

Heat recycled from Bitcoin mining rigs running on [Finland’s 92% fossil-free grid](https://www.treasuryfinland.fi/investor-relations/sustainability-and-finnish-government-bonds/data-and-facts-energy-transition/#:~:text=Finland's%20energy%20mix%20is%20well,second%20highest%20in%20the%20EU.) is increasingly
replacing [54.6% fossil-fuel dependent](https://www.statista.com/statistics/660023/finland-type-of-fuels-used-for-district-heating/) existing district heating sources in Finland

The world has changed, leaving Earthjustice behind
--------------------------------------------------

Earthjustice published their first anti-Bitcoin report in 2022. Since then, the world of Bitcoin mining has fundamentally changed in five major ways:

**1\. Scientific community puts its weight behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits**

Bitcoin mining has been shown to

*   accelerate the renewable energy transition ([Lal et al](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445), 2023)
*   obviate the need for gas peaker plants ([Bruno et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765523000313), 2023)
*   stabilize the grid ([Rudd et al](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/4/47), 2023)
*   halve the payback time for solar farms ([Hakimi et al](https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440\(24\)15796-9), 2024)
*   accelerate renewable microgrid development ([Moghimi et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061524001364) 2024)
*   reduce methane emissions from landfills ([Sechrest et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624029652?via%3Dihub), 2024)
*   avert the need for expensive [grid upgrades](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_waited-34-months-for-this-moment-in-march-activity-7296373253453819905-Y2SK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) ([Norris et al](https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf), 2025)

with [14 out of the last 16](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_from-mining-to-mitigation-how-bitcoin-can-activity-7280429495679963136-2E-q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) peer reviewed papers on Bitcoin and energy (87.5%) showing clear positive environmental externalities.

**2\. Sustainability media gets behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits**

Of the ten climate-focused media that are commenting on Bitcoin mining and energy, [nine of them](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_bitcoin-miner-mara-buying-114-mw-wind-farm-activity-7280432749180559360-AaWO/) found strong environmental benefits (90%).

**3\. 180° turnaround in mainstream media reporting on Bitcoin mining**

Of the 14 media outlets still covering Bitcoin and energy, [12 are covering](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_why-bitcoin-is-key-to-the-future-of-finance-activity-7278907968035700737-9IwO?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) Bitcoin’s environmental benefits (85.7%)

**4\. Bitcoin’s sustainable energy proportion has increased from 49.1% to 56.7%**

source: D[igital Assets Research Institute](https://woocharts.com/esg-bitcoin-mining-sustainability/)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screen-Shot-2025-02-23-at-4.14.23-PM-1024x638.png)

**5\. Source findings of Earthjustice’s 2022 report debunked**

The work of Alex de Vries and authors who relied on his findings, which formed the basis of Earthjustice’s 2022 findings, has been discredited due to fundamental flaws in both data-gathering techniques and methodology.

source: [Sai & Vranken](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720923000441?via%3Dihub), 2023

Earthjustice has responded by spreading even more misinformation
----------------------------------------------------------------

Earthjuistice has not revisited their 2022 position on Bitcoin mining. Rather, their approach mirrors tactics that disregard scientific consensus, which is concerning given the volume of peer-reviewed research supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. They have either ignored the scientific consensus, or dismissed the entire body of research as being the work of “vest interest groups”

But not only has Earthjustice ignored the undisputed evidence of Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, they have put out more misinformation.

The misinformation in Earthjustice’s 2025 report falls into three categories

1.  The very widely debunked claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids
2.  The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining increases power prices
3.  The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining does not offer community benefits

Let’s address each in turn.

### 1\. Bitcoin and grid stability

This claim demonstrates considerable ignorance about the large body of evidence showing that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids. The claim also reveals a severe lack of awareness about what Earthjustice’s peers in the environmental movement have been writing in climate media for some time.

The key point is: Bitcoin does not destabilize grids. In fact, a mountain of peer-reviewed and real-world evidence shows that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids, enabling grid operators to integrate higher concentrations of variable renewable energy.

For example:

1.  [Lai et al](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445) states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid”. [source](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445)
2.  [Ibañez et al](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35) concludes “PoW mining emerges as an alternative that can provide additional income and ancillary services (auxiliary services designed to provide stability to the energy grid)”. [source](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35)
3.  [Menati et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X) found that “the flexibility of cryptocurrency mining loads plays a pivotal role in the reliability of electricity systems and the stability of electricity markets” and “cryptocurrency mining …is shown not to be detrimental to power grid reliability even with significant amounts at certain locations.” [source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X)
4.  A whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to [stabilize grids](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_waited-34-months-for-this-moment-in-march-activity-7296373253453819905-Y2SK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow), and decarbonize grids. [source](https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf)
5.  These findings correspond precisely to Texas’ grid operators own direct observations.

###### **“\[Bitcoin mining operations\] have found a way to come into the market and take some of that excess wind in offpeak periods. Then it can turn down whenever we need the power for other customers… And if a generator trips off line can very quickly respond to that frequency disruption and allow us to balance our grid mor


Rob Warren shows how Bitcoin’s proof-of-work, anchored in energy and decentralization, makes it unkillable and turns stranded energy into value.

Key Takeaways
-------------

![Center of Hash - Bitcoin EXPERT Reveals Why It’s Impossible to Hack Bitcoin | Rob Warren](https://www.tftc.io/content/images/2025/08/Rob-Warren.jpg)

Rob Warren, Head of Research and Education at Bitcoin Park, explains that Bitcoin’s security rests on proof-of-work mining, which issues new coins and validates transactions by converting energy into hashes. This anchors Bitcoin’s rules in physical reality, ensuring the 21 million cap and preventing manipulation. Mining thrives on “liability energy,” stranded, wasted, or underutilized power, making Bitcoin a unique buyer of last resort that strengthens grids and monetizes inefficiencies. While hardware manufacturing and mining pools remain centralized, with Bitmain, Whatsminer, Foundry, and Antpool dominating, ongoing efforts like open-source tools and alternative models point toward greater resilience. Ultimately, Bitcoin was not built to rival Visa but to be unkillable, its strength lies in decentralization, energy use, and the permissionless incentives that make it impossible to hack.

Best Quotes
-----------

“All Bitcoin that exists has come into existence through mining.”

“Bitcoin wasn’t designed to compete with Visa. It was designed to be unkillable.”

“It needs to be hard to make money… there has to be a cost associated with producing the money.”

“Bitcoin demands that you use real energy in the real world if you want to participate.”

“Energy is often a liability. For producers, Bitcoin is a buyer of last resort.”

“You don’t have to understand Bitcoin to mine it, but if you don’t, you risk killing the golden goose.”

“The economies of scale in Bitcoin mining don’t come from hashing, they come from energy strategy and efficiency.”

“Two pools controlling over 60% of the network is essentially two nodes running 60% of the network.”

“Maybe the golden age of mining pools is behind us.”

“Bitcoin’s design works because it enforces discipline through energy, creating a permissionless, censorship-resistant system no one can hack.”

Conclusion
----------

The episode makes clear that Bitcoin’s resilience comes from its grounding in physics: miners must expend electricity to secure the network, tying digital scarcity to real-world cost. This design ensures integrity, censorship resistance, and long-term survival, even as challenges of centralization persist. Far from wasteful, Bitcoin transforms excess and stranded energy into economic value while enabling new innovations like heat reuse. By aligning incentives through proof-of-work, Bitcoin remains fundamentally unkillable, a system where energy and decentralization make hacking impossible.

Timestamps
----------

0:00 - Rob's Background at Bitcoin Park
03:01 - Core Functions of Bitcoin Mining
05:19 - Why Energy Consumption Secures Bitcoin
10:16 - How Bitcoin Mining Machines Work
18:03 - Proof-of-Work vs Proof-of-Stake
25:35 - Permissionless Mining & Economic Incentives
31:16 - Energy as Liability, Miners as Solution
38:51 - Optimal Energy Sources for Mining
49:15 - Machine Efficiency & Depreciation Economics
53:38 - Economies of Scale in Bitcoin Mining
58:07 - Energy Efficiency Hardware Improvements
1:04:57 - Hardware Manufacturing Centralization Risks
1:11:07 - Pool Mining Centralization Risks
1:34:40 - Miners' Role in Promoting Decentralization
1:40:49 - Expert Recommendations for Further Learning

Transcript
----------

(00:05) Rob, welcome back to Bitcoin Park. It's good to be here again. Last time was the uh Texas Energy and Mining Summit. Well, feels like yesterday, but it does now now a couple months in the past. Yeah. And uh so we're joined today by Rob Warren, who is the head of research and education at Bitcoin Park. Talk a little bit about that role. Yeah.
(00:29) So, I I've worked predominantly in the mining industry and have have been really deep in really kind of generally the research and education side of things just cuz we've all been figuring stuff out in public as things do in Bitcoin and jumped on with Bitcoin Park essentially is the the the broadhead of research and education which gives me the opportunity to do exactly um exactly what I'm doing but in the context of now the whole Bitcoin space, which is fantastic because it's not just exposure to mining, but it's also introductions to folks that are, you know, working on the human rights side of Bitcoin, who are working on the
(01:05) technical side of Bitcoin, the payments, the custodies. So, it's it's really kind of a a whole new aspect of uh of work that's opened up, which I love. And in addition to work at Bitcoin Park, which were now members of the organization. That's right. Here in Austin, uh, happy members.
(01:30) You also wrote a book, The Bitcoin Miners Almanac. That's right. Yeah. And in my view, you know, we're friends, but also just in the discussions that we've had, you um have a well-rounded perspective of granularly, you know, how a Bitcoin mine works, what the inputs are, Bitcoin at its broadest sense as a money network, and um the combination of those for these early episodes of this podcast.
(01:59) you know, you were one of the one, two, and three people on my list to to record the first episodes to kind of lay some groundwork of not just going into Bitcoin mining 101, but painting a broad structure of the critical aspects of um how Bitcoin mining works, the energy components of it, why it's important to the system.
(02:24) And today I want to kind of dive deeper into the the energy side of what is actually happening, you know, in terms of why the energy is important to Bitcoin. Also some points around centralization. But before we get into those kind of deeper points, I want to hear you articulate because we've had conversations in the past about how there's there's bad analogies of what Bitcoin mining is or isn't. Mhm.
(02:53) One of which is that Bitcoin mining is a is a battery or Bitcoin's a battery. Um whether it's proof of power, but but just talk a little bit about, you know, from your perspective, the function of mining to the Bitcoin network and why it's important and what it is. Sure. Sure. Well, I mean, as as most things are, it's always good to go back to the source document and kind of understand how things were understood at the earliest days of Bitcoin. So functionally, Bitcoin mining does two things.
(03:23) It allows for the issuance of new Bitcoin. That that to us is called the block reward. So approximately every 10 minutes a block is found. You find a block, you are rewarded with something. You're rewarded with Bitcoin. That is a way to get Bitcoin into the world. You need a way to essentially distribute Bitcoin so that people can then have some utility.
(03:46) they can whether that's holding or spending or whatever they do with it. All Bitcoin that exists has come into existence through mining. The next thing that you need to do is you need to be able to transact with the asset. So you need to be able to actually send it to people and that's the second part of Bitcoin mining which is settlement.
(04:05) So, it's the ability to actually submit a signed transaction to the memp pool, have it included in a block, which then the miners are given a small reward for, which is the the fee that you pay to transact on the Bitcoin network. And fundamentally, that's the two things that Bitcoin mining does from a from an operational from a functional perspective in uh in Bitcoin.
(04:24) And it's where we stand today is really worlds apart from where we were in the days of the white paper. And it's almost unrecognizable to look at Bitcoin as of 2025 and try to compare it to what it was in in the earliest days, the 20 odds, right? For one, the biggest difference is that when we talk about what a node is, Satoshi refers to a node as a node that is actually doing mining. And where we stand today, functionally, that's extremely rare.
(04:59) Now, it's it's coming back and I'm sure we'll we'll hit on this when we talk about the decentralization point. But it's interesting how you you can learn a lot about the present by actually going to the original source documents, the white paper, and then understanding, okay, well, what's different and what's the same and how do we hold true to what was actually, you know, given to us in the white paper to make sure that we're really we're really um appropriately stewarding this thing, this Bitcoin thing as we build on it in the future.
(05:24) And so what is it about the mining function and specifically energy that you view or why is it critical to the system? Like why is this function critical to? So if they're if they're doing if if Bitcoin miners are functionally doing two things, validating currency transactions and validating the fixed supply of the currency, why and how is the mining function critical to that? But at a lower level, what is the function of energy and energy consumption within there? That's such a big question.
(06:06) It's such a big question and it's really interesting because when you when you look at the earliest conversations on something like the the Bitcoin talk forums where a lot of folks who are household names in Bitcoin are trying to figure out what is the extension or what is the natural growth path of Bitcoin.
(06:33) There are only very small glimpses into what the future of the mining sector would look like. There are some references to when I run my computer, it heats up my room. Um, there's references to the noise, you know, how how noisy your computer gets if you happen to be running your Bitcoin client and and it's mining and your computer is now wrapped up operating at 100% all the time.
(06:52) Um, but it was I'd argue that it's not really something that we have a fully fleshed out theory of. It's something that we're actually living through the history of right now. And fundamentally it all reduces to this this truth which is that to win a b


FREE MILK by quenching your thirst at milk.market 🥛🐮🐐

https://blossom.primal.net/7fc01d16d1347c64569ce12b44fb4dd6d6f91eef3f60d7e96487318349240c67.mp4

#milkmonday #freemilk #dairyfarm #rawmilkrevolution #rawmilk #milkmarket #cowlover #milk #milky #smallfarm #localfarm #localfood #milkman


#KurtCobain

As far as I understand it at this time, the murder of Kurt Cobain went something like this.

After arriving back from LA Kurt his away in the greenhouse of his home. He was trying to avoid being found by Courtney or any of the many people she sent to the house looking for him in this time frame.

Kurt would occasionally come down to grab fruit and food from the kitchen. Joe Burns was present at the house along with his then girlfriend Bonnie, along with Cali DeWitt and his girlfriend Jessica Hopper, and Jennifer Adamson.

Joe Burns attests that the last time he spoke to Kurt, Kurt had just recorded a 4 track of him playing all the instruments, as he had planned to leave Nirvana. Kurt was also in the process of divorcing Courtney Love. He wanted to break free of all the money grubbing people around him.

Kurt gave this recording to Cali Dewitt, who was planning on starting a small record label. At some point Dylan Carlson arrives with another person. Joe Burns has not identified this person, but Danny Rich claims he was the second person.

Kurt had already been using heroin when they arrived, but Kurt, Dylan and Cali go upstairs and shoot up some more.

At some point they come down and decide they want to go up to the greenhouse to shoot up some more. Joe and others notice Kurt is already very high and doesn't need anymore heroin, but Dylan and another person coerce Kurt to go, and help carry him up to the greenhouse.

Cali gathers Joe and Bonnie and Jennifer and tells them they need to leave and get a few states away. Joe looks up in the greenhouse and says he sees what looks like Kurt in a red dress. Joe doesn't want to leave but he doesn't want his girlfriend around this weirdness.

They then hear a muffled blast of a gun.

Joe gets anxious when discussing these events, and after examining other interviews of his he does not want to reveal more information until he has some guarantees for his protection.

Danny Rich was recently revealed to be an accomplice to the murder by the youtuber Chris Todd. Danny denied his involvement but the internet was able to dig up enough information to tie him heavily to Courtney Love.

Danny then came forward with an interview with The Life of a Borderline and admitted to being a part of the murder. He claims his role was that of piloting a private jet from LA to seaatle and back, transporting Courtney Love and Eric Erlandson  to the Cobain home for the murder.

Danny claims Dylan Carlsen and Cali Dewitt shot up Kurt with the heroin that really killed Kurt. Mark Lanegan and Eric Erlandson were responsible for providing the heroin. Courtney Love orchestrated the whole thing and was present in the greenhouse to confirm the plan was carried out.

There is evidence on Kurt's body of a struggle, as if people pinned him down. His right inner elbow shows signs of forced injection, while the body was staged to fake he had overdosed injecting into the left.

I am not completely sure who fired the shotgun, but it is likely Dylan Carlson, who purchased the shotgun in Kurt's name, unknown to Kurt. Cali DeWitt and Jessica Hopper purchased the shotgun shells.

Danny Goldberg and Rosemary Carol are complicit as they have been writing the checks for everyone at Courtney's behest.

Elements within the Seattle PD and LAPD are likely involved as well.

Tom Grant, who was hired by Courtney Love to investigate the disappearance of Kurt, is likely involved as well. There are inconsistencies in his story, and Joe Burns has identified Tom as also being present the night of the murder.

Danny Rich claims the murder occurred on April 5th.

Many of the conspirators were present on April 8th, 1994 after the body was discovered by an electrician. They can be seen in footage from the day.


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


:cashu:


Great convo
🧡👊🏻🍻


A short note: https://video.nostr.build/736e74824566e9cf06d89923...

https://video.nostr.build/736e74824566e9cf06d8992354de27298236c792458334b5b348f6251af3ffb6.mp4

https://x.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1960737883658047943


chairman t?


My mission in life is to get people to stop using services provided by jack mallers or jack Dorsey

They are clowns 🤡
Clearly

Scamming people into kyc and not self custody

We have better options

Stop using jack

Both of them


Block 912039

3 - high priority
1 - medium priority
1 - low priority
1 - no priority
1 - purging

#bitcoinfees #mempool


A short note: Super Unique Damascus Steel Knife Design

#knife #...

Super Unique Damascus Steel Knife Design

#knife #knifestr https://video.nostr.build/c7b988c3a207de8feb3a5b9a70709fa7228aea2b056be32f8d15323f457cb63d.mp4


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


test


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e


fresh testing. https://primal.net/qa the best place to test nostr!

USA vs. Serbia | Men's Basketball Semifinal | Paris 2024 Olympics


Serbia and Croatia treat their water‑polo matches like a high‑stakes pool party, where the only thing hotter than the competition is the amount of popcorn the fans sneak in for the “spectacular” splash‑downs.

Serbia vs. Croatia - Men's Water Polo Gold Medal Game - Paris 2024 Highlights - Olympics


How Activist NGOs Have Unintentionally STALLED Progress TOWARDS Ending Gas Flaring

The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly all gas flaring by 2030. Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a major environmental problem, releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is 84 times more warming over a 20 year period than CO2. In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing higher levels of toxic gases like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs. These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue. The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers. False positives: The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring. These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: Sierra Club Statement, 2020; Greenpeace International, 2020). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring. Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: Sierra Club Press Release, 2022). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021). Criticism Without Solutions Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: CIEL Press Release, 2021). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: Friends of the Earth Report, 2019). While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that. This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring. How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: 350.org Press Release, 2021; Oil Change International Report, 2021). This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future. Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been praised by the World Economic Forum for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: Upstream Data Reports, 2022). Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving. Analysis before ideology For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration. These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting. Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means: Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them Taking time to do their own research, including engaging with experts in the domain (something that has been conspicuous by its absent in NGOs criticisms of Bitcoin mining and other industries) Take responsibility for the fact that they have the power to aid environmental progress, but equally the power to hinder progress through criticizing they may not fully understand and which may in fact be a solution, or part of the solution. Free themselves from the trap of overzealously declaring “greenwashing” even when it’s a false positive, and focus on what really matters: working collaboratively to reduce emissions and protecting the environment.

The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly [all gas flaring by 2030](https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/zero-routine-flaring-by-2030). Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a [major environmental problem](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63051458), releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is [84 times more warming](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/methane-action-tackling-warming-planet) over a 20 year period than CO2.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-28-at-9.59.33-AM-1024x679.png)

In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing [higher levels of toxic gases](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67522413) like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: _World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023_). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs.

These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue.

The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers.

* * *

### False positives: **The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not**

One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring.

These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: _Sierra Club Statement, 2020_; _Greenpeace International, 2020_). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring.

Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: _Sierra Club Press Release, 2022_). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: _Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021_).

* * *

### **Criticism Without Solutions**

Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: _CIEL Press Release, 2021_). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: _Friends of the Earth Report, 2019_).

While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that.

This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: _IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021_). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring.

* * *

### **How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration**

Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: _350.org Press Release, 2021_; _Oil Change International Report, 2021_).

This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future.

* * *

### **Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception**

In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been [praised by the World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-catches-waste-methane-to-power-data-centres/) for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: _Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023_). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: _Upstream Data Reports, 2022_).

Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving.

* * *

### **Analysis before ideology**

For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.

While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration.

These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting.

Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means:

1.  Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference
2.  Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them
3.  Taki