By Landon Manning
A comprehensive and widely-circulated story published by The New York Times earlier this month presented a grim depiction of the relationship between Bitcoin and the U.S. electrical grid; however, many within the Bitcoin community have pointed out that its partisan approach either failed to consider the facts or was wholly uninterested in them.
The Times’ story took a fairly comprehensive dive into the burgeoning world of cryptocurrency mining in the United States. Much of the piece’s coverage is centered around the mining industry in Texas, to build up what it framed as a typical example of how the mining industry operates now that it has largely moved to the U.S. from China.
In the wake of its publication, however, figures from the Bitcoin community have come to question not only the story’s agenda and presentation of data, but the methodology used. Pierre Rochard, vice president of research at mining firm Riot Platforms, which is referenced in the article, called special attention to the “marginal emissions analysis” used in the story. The Times claims, in essence, that almost all of the “carbon-free” operations conducted inevitably receive portions of their electricity budget from fossil fuel sources, and could be seriously tainted.
Bitcoin mining advocates have pointed out that, although the petroleum industry is indeed very entrenched, Texas also is a national leader in renewables, specifically solar and wind power. A great deal of Bitcoin miners’ electricity comes straight from these sources, as intended. Additionally, a notable use case for Bitcoin is in flare gas mining, which arises when natural gas extracted from oil wells cannot be profitably harnessed. Companies typically burn it onsite, but Bitcoiners can quickly set up shop to keep it from being wasted. Thus, Bitcoin can create a net good from a wasteful industry, but these could be uncharitably called “non-green mining operations.”
More to the point, however, others in the community have leveled even harsher criticism; with Bitcoinist describing the article as intense data cherry picking. It claimed that “there are currently 26 mining companies in the U.S. and Canada that use more than 90% sustainable energy. Of these, the NY Times included only two in its data (Cleanspark and Terawulf). Within those two, the journalists focused on the least renewable energy-based sites and neglected those that are predominantly renewable.”
Bitcoinist also disputed the figures used on emissions levels for several leading miners, and noted that the story’s methodology is unclear.
Furthermore, as others in the community have pointed out, the Times’ story is very keen to use emotional appeals that have little actual relevance. The story ends with a local resident despairing about the town’s diminishing fortunes since its aluminum plant closed, ending on the line, “it was the old aluminum smelter, now home to the Bitdeer mine.” However, this smelter had already ceased operations before the invention of Bitcoin. This is just a prominent example, as community members pointed out: irrelevant comparisons are used frequently and benefits are downplayed as negative points are distorted and the industry is even implied to be a parasite on taxpayers.
Still, despite all of this harsh coverage, it is hardly the first time that Bitcoin has been lambasted in the press. The value of bitcoin has risen despite a wide range of ridicule and condemnation from many sources and, in fact, the value rose following the publication of the New York Times article. As Bitcoin is, in fact, becoming greener, it seems that its future is becoming brighter too.
