New Scientist’s criticism of Bitcoin’s energy use sparks backlash, with advocates citing data and case studies on cleaner mining models.
- New Scientist called Bitcoin “one big disaster for the environment,” reviving debate over mining energy use.
- Alex Gladstein and Daniel Batten disputed the claims, citing data on energy sourcing.
- Case studies from sustainable Bitcoin mining companies show the growing use of renewable and waste energy in mining.
Bitcoin was thrust back into the environmental spotlight this week after New Scientist branded the cryptocurrency “one big disaster for the environment,” prompting backlash from the crypto community.
New Scientist, a popular science and technology publication, ignited criticism of Bitcoin (BTC) on Saturday, calling it a disaster, and cited high energy use, limited utility, and links to criminal activity on the “dark web.”
On the latest episode of New Scientist’s podcast called “The 5 Worst Ideas of the 21st Century,” Leah Crane, a reporter at the publication, argued that Bitcoin mining consumes “a colossal amount of computing power,” is a poor investment, and enables criminal activity on the dark web. She cited her conversation with Alex de Vries and said that “[we’re] better off buying a bunch of Pokémon cards.”
Previously, Vries-Gao, founder of Digiconomist, data scientist at De Nederlandsche Bank, publicly acknowledged the problems that come with mining Bitcoin. To tackle that, Vries-Gao started the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index in 2014 to make Bitcoin's environmental effects clearer. The index gives daily estimates of the network's sustainability metrics. He later added more indicators to the index, such as carbon emissions, water use, and electronic waste. The index got a lot more attention during Bitcoin's first big bull run in late 2017, when the price shot up to almost $20,000 and the network used a lot more energy.
Bitcoin (BTC) was trading at $88,932.59, down 0.9% in the last 24 hours. On Stocktwits, retail sentiment around Bitcoin remained in ‘bearish’ territory, accompanied by ‘normal’ chatter levels over the past day.
A byte shared on X quickly gained traction online, drawing responses from the crypto community.
Crypto Advocates Push Back
Bitcoin supporters disputed such claims, saying it failed to reflect recent data on energy sourcing and real-world use cases.
Human rights activist and author, Alex Gladstein, responded that Bitcoin’s energy use should be assessed within broader energy-market dynamics, arguing that mining often takes place where power would otherwise be wasted or curtailed.
Gladstein also rejected claims that Bitcoin has limited utility, pointing to its use in countries facing inflation, capital controls, or restricted access to banking services.
Similarly, climate-focused Bitcoin researcher Daniel Batten challenged the environmental claims, citing studies by You et al., and Menati et al., that suggest Bitcoin mining has become increasingly powered by low-carbon and renewable energy sources.
Batten said recent estimates place sustainable energy use in Bitcoin mining above 50%, compared with significantly lower levels earlier in the decade. Bitcoin’s environmental impact has been a contested debate for years, with disagreement increasingly centered on how mining energy is sourced and measured rather than on electricity use alone.
Shift Towards Cleaner Mining Models
Several mining firms mine Bitcoin with cleaner energy systems. Terawulf (WULF), a publicly traded Bitcoin mining company, runs primarily on renewable power and carbon-free electricity, including wind, solar, and hydroelectric sources, as part of its strategy to reduce the environmental impact of mining.
Another example includes Crusoe Energy Systems, which uses otherwise flared natural gas from oil fields to generate electricity for mining, a process the company says reduces methane emissions compared with flaring.
Read also: Macro Drag Vs. Smart Money: What Will Drive Bitcoin’s Next Move?
For updates and corrections, email newsroom[at]stocktwits[dot]com.<
