Prominent Bitcoin advocate and environmental analyst Daniel Batten has publicly criticized a previous New York Times article on <a href="https://www.cryptoknowmics.com/news/bit-mining-nyse-btcm-invests-in-prospers-native-tokens-to-support-new-focus-on-bitcoin-mining/">Bitcoin mining</a>, labeling its methodology and conclusions as "junk science." Batten asserts that the legacy media outlet utilized a flawed approach, specifically the use of marginal emission calculations, to support its anti-Bitcoin narrative regarding excessive energy consumption and environmental impact. He noted that the original criticism, which focused on the energy consumption of Bitcoin, has now been thoroughly debunked by independent research.
<h2>Debunking the Flawed Methodology</h2>
[embed]https://TWITTER.com/DSBatten/status/1982614164255420589[/embed]

Batten’s criticism centers on the NYT’s selective application of the marginal emissions accounting method. Marginal emissions refer to the extra emissions created by consuming an additional unit of electricity. According to Batten, applying this to the entire Bitcoin mining industry is misleading because it does not account for the dynamic nature of electricity grids. A key piece of evidence supporting his claim comes from a recent peer-reviewed study published in Nature Climate Change.

The study demonstrates that using this approach can significantly overestimate emissions. The principle suggests that new energy consumption, like that from Bitcoin miners, often displaces other clean energy sources before it begins to draw on fossil fuels, leading to smaller emission impacts than calculated.
<h2>Bitcoin’s True Environmental Footprint</h2>
The flawed methodology used in the NYT article, Batten argues, fails to account for several positive aspects of Bitcoin mining. It ignores the significant use of curtailed renewable generation—excess wind or solar power that would otherwise be wasted—and the investment in clean energy sources that mining encourages.

The latest industry data from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance further supports a cleaner narrative. The global share of sustainable energy sources, including nuclear, wind, and hydropower, in the Bitcoin mining energy mix is reported to have grown substantially, now standing at 52.4%. This data directly contradicts the narrative that the environmental costs of mining are unjustified, suggesting the CO₂ impact is far smaller than critics assert.

Bitcoin Analyst Slams NYT Mining Criticism as ‘Junk Science’

Bitcoin analyst Daniel Batten slams the NYT’s mining criticism, citing a peer-reviewed study that debunks the paper's "marginal emissions" methodology.

Bitcoin Analyst Slams NYT Mining Criticism as ‘Junk Science’

Top Picks