As institutional adoption of Bitcoin (BTC) has expanded rapidly in 2025, a claim has been raised that prevailing views of Bitcoin mining’s environmental impact differ widely from actual data.

Cointelegraph, a blockchain media outlet, reported on Jan. 5 (local time) that ESG specialist Daniel Batten said in a recent post on X, formerly Twitter, that nine major criticisms over Bitcoin mining’s energy use and environmental damage are not true. “Every new technology comes with misunderstandings born of a lack of understanding and fear,” he said, adding that Bitcoin is going through the same process.

Dow Jones in November last year criticised Harvard University’s endowment investing in Bitcoin as “fake money and an environmental disaster,” and Bloomberg also reported that “Bitcoin consumes the electricity of the world’s poor.” Batten rebutted those claims, saying they were exaggerated or stemmed from flawed comparisons.

Batten cited 4 peer-reviewed studies and said an increase in Bitcoin transaction volume does not directly translate into higher energy use. He also argued that, contrary to claims that Bitcoin mining destabilises power grids, it helps stabilise grids by adjusting power demand in places with a high share of renewables, such as Texas.

On controversy over rising electricity bills, Batten said there is no clear evidence that Bitcoin mining raises power prices. He said there are also cases in which mining lowered power prices by absorbing surplus electricity in some regions. He also said comparing Bitcoin’s energy use with country-level consumption is inappropriate, arguing that, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasises, what matters is not the amount consumed but the shift in energy sources.

On carbon emissions, he said Bitcoin mining has no direct emissions and produces only indirect emissions from electricity use. On the argument that Ethereum’s (ETH) proof of stake (PoS) is inherently more environmentally friendly than Bitcoin, he drew a line by calling it a result of confusing energy use with environmental effects. He stressed that Bitcoin’s proof of work (PoW) could provide secondary effects such as methane reduction, grid stabilisation and an expansion of renewable energy.

Batten also addressed claims that Bitcoin mining takes away renewable energy. He cited Africa’s Gridless project and said renewable energy that would not have been used without Bitcoin gained economic viability through mining. He added that some studies have also presented findings that Bitcoin mining could raise the utilisation rate of solar and wind power to more than 90 percent.

“The conventional wisdom that Bitcoin mining wastes energy does not match the actual data,” Batten said. “It can instead reduce renewable energy waste and play a role in improving the efficiency of energy systems,” he added.