As a climatetech investor, I have seen over 200 technologies and innovations. But the leading one by far in terms of its ability to create an immediate positive environmental externalities is Bitcoin mining, because

1. It uses existing, proven technology

2. It can solve problems (such as mitigation and wasted renewable energy) profitably, which other technologies simply cannot

3. It is modular, relatively low budget, rapidly scaleable and does not need government incentives and subsidies to make it viable

4. It creates positive social consequences in parallel as an organic byproduct of using the technology (such as reducing residential power prices, helping grid operators stabilize grids, obviating the need for gas peaker plants and expensive grid upgrades, and mitigating the negative impacts of putting addition AI load onto grids). It also helps renewable operators with the current backlash they are facing due to the high levels of waste energy they are not able to sell (with costs that are often picked up by the grid operator via curtailment payments).

This is why 7 out of 7 of the grid operators we know of that have experimented with Bitcoin mining have embraced it and are looking to scale up its usage on the grid.

Like Electric Vehicles (EVs), Bitcoin is a fully electrified network, so it has no direct emissions.

Like EVs, BTC has "indirect emissions" because some of that electricity was generated using fossil fuels.

However ... also like EVs, each time someone uses it, rather than the old, more emission intensive technology it replaces (fossil fuel transport in the case of EVs, the more emission intensive banking network in the case of Bitcoin), it creates a net emission reduction.

Here's a view we have comparing 2 net emission reducing technologies.

In terms of usefulness, both are useful, just in different places and different ways. EVs help transport people in the West around, and are about convenience.

Bitcoin's fastest adoption has been outside the West where it helps people transport and store money without high remittance fees, high inflation and the lack of a banking network - and is often about existential need.

The end of Bitcoin mining gaslighting in mainstream media

Litmaps, a powerful research tracking tool, reveals that patient zero for all junk science on Bitcoin's environmental impact was a single 6 page "commentary" by Alex de Vries. (A commentary in the context of an academic journal means a short opinion piece that does not to go through a full peer-review process and which does not use novel empirical data).

The method he used to claim that Bitcoin's environmental damage was a growing concern was his fundamentally flawed "energy use per transactions" method (Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions, therefore it can scale transaction volume exponentially without increasing emissions).

de Vries' metric was later debunked in no fewer than 4 separate academic journals as part of full length academic papers.
*Masanet et al 2019
https://researchgate.net/publication/335456595_Implausible_projections_overestimate_near-term_Bitcoin_CO_2_emissions
*Dittmar et al. 2019
https://nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0534-5
*Sedlmeir et al, 2020
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x
*Sai and Vraken 2023
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720923000441#br0070

The entire body of de Vries' work was systematically debunked by Sai and Vranken in late 2023
source: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720923000441#br0070

Immediately after Sai & Vranken's study, all mainstream media outlets stopped covering de Vries' Bitcoin "research"

In fact, 22 mainstream media outlets have now flipped to covering Bitcoin's environmental benefits (source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/2007095059963949217) which have been well established in 24 peer reviewed full length academic studies. (source: https://lnkd.in/gdH4wvw7)

A further 15 sustainability media outlets are now also covering Bitcoin mining's environmental benefits:
source: https://lnkd.in/gdH4wvw7

But just as years after the myth "all fats cause cholesterol" was debunked, many people are still unaware of the science, the same is true of Bitcoin mining

In both cases, the population was misinformed over many years. As a result, many people are still unaware that the contemporary academic literature, case studies and grid operators themselves all overwhelmingly support Bitcoin mining's environmental benefits
source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/2013987189256810703

It is only a matter of time before policymakers, regulators, political leaders and investment committees catch up.

Once they do we will see mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, and mainstream adoption of Bitcoin mining as part of climate action (aka: what the peer reviewed research tells us it is)
source: https://x.com/compose/articles/edit/2009351000952279040

While many media outlets are now objectively commenting on Bitcoin, others (Financial Times, The Economist, Verge, Wired, New Scientist) have simply pivoted to changing the type of Bitcoin misinformation they publish.

100th Monkey Effect

One mindset shift, if applied by even 1% of Bitcoiners, can have a pronounced impact on Bitcoin adoption

3 March. RayDalio: "Central banks are not going to want to buy Bitcoin"

6 March... d

In 2021, a headline like this on the front page of a Pulitzer Prize winning paper would've been unthinkable

But backed up by data from Cambridge, Duke University + 23 peer reviewed studies showing Bitcoin mining's environmental benefits, the media have changed their tune also

JUST IN: Paraguay has just followed the lead of Bhutan, using wasted hydro energy to mine Bitcoin, for a likely National Bitcoin Reserve.

"Reports indicate mined Bitcoin will likely be held as a state asset or the national treasury, potentially used to fund infrastructure"

We're now 3 years in to Bhutan's Bitcoin experiment
That means we now have robust data on how it has impacted the economy

For context: Bhutan's economy was in dire shape in 2022 due to loss of all tourism income (it's #2 export earner) during the COVID period.

It got so bad that Bhutan was 3 months away from defaulting on import payments.

IMF was poised to step in to structure a loan which would have led to heavy debt repayments, but also ceding of economic sovereignty to a lender whose loan conditions permit them to dictate how to (re)structure an economy.

Instead, Bhutan formed a large Bitcoin Strategic Reserve by using their surplus renewable hydropower to mine Bitcoin.

The IMF has warned on numerous occasions that nations embracing Bitcoin would destabilize their economy, be less effective at attracting foreign direct investment, and endanger their decarbonizing and environmental initiatives.

What does the data say (as reported by Wall St Journal, Al Jazeera and Forbes)

1. Bhutan was able to "use Bitcoin reserves to avert a crisis as foreign currency reserves dwindled to $689 million"

2. The bitcoin reserves have directly addressed pressing fiscal needs. "In June 2023, Bhutan allocated $72 million from its holdings to finance a 50% salary increase for civil servants"

3. Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay in an interview said that bitcoin also "supports free healthcare and environmental projects"

4. Tobgay also said their Bitcoin reserves helped in "stabilizing [the nation’s] $3.5 billion economy"

5. Independent analysts have now said that "this model could attract foreign investment, particularly for nations with untapped renewable resources"

Considering that what transpired in Bhutan has helped stabilize an economy that the IMF warned Bitcoin would destabilize, it begs the question: what data was the IMF's predictions based on?

For Bhutan, Bitcoin didn't just boost the economy, it allowed Bhutan to maintain economic independence and provided an example to other small nations of a path forward that did not require the IMF.

This is an important first:

1. Reuters are correctly calling it Bitcoin mining rather than "crypto mining", and explicitly linking it to reducing wasted energy.

2. The article acknowledges that there has been an "increase of wasted energy" at the solar and wind generator with "billions of reais in losses to energy firms"

3. Reports that French company Engie is "looking at bitcoin mining ...at its new solar plant in Brazil to make the facility more profitable"

4. Acknowledges "having those systems would reduce curtailments that are hurting the economics of Assu Sol" (the solar and wind operator)

The ability of Bitcoin mining to accelerate green energy production through monetizing wasted wind and solar energy is well established in academic literature (since 2023) and among grid operators (since 2022)

But this is marks a first time the mainstream media has explicitly acknowledged this.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/engie-eyes-bitcoin-mine-storage-system-huge-new-brazil-solar-plant-2026-02-23/