Troy Cross, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Reed College, launched a vehement response to Greenpeace’s ongoing criticisms about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. An advisor to several Bitcoin and energy organizations, Cross’s post not only defended BTC but also exposed gaps in Greenpeace’s stance, prompting the post to make waves in the community.
Lyn Alden, a prominent figure in the macro world, commented, “I think this is the most politely brutal post I have ever read on this app. Like, every time I thought it might start to wrap up, the constructive savagery only grew.” Echoing Alden’s sentiments, Jamie Coutts of Bloomberg Intelligence labeled Cross’s post as a “supremely articulate take down.”
Greenpeace’s Lies About Bitcoin Are Destroyed
In his comprehensive analysis, Cross tackled a multitude of claims made by Greenpeace. He began by questioning the organization’s genuine intent to understand or change BTC’s code, citing their lack of initiative in hiring experts or fostering collaboration with eco-conscious figures within the BTC community.
Cross remarked, “Greenpeace USA has shown no interest in actually changing Bitcoin’s code. Else, they would have hired someone to explore the technical options… Nor have they engaged with the content of the KPMG report they casually dismiss.”
Cross also directed attention to Greenpeace’s apparent lack of understanding about crucial energy dynamics related to BTC. He cited their apparent unawareness of the potential of methane mitigation in both oil fields and landfills and their unfamiliarity with the concept of ‘location agnosticism’ in the context of an energy system constrained by transmission capabilities.
He further elucidated the potential of Bitcoin to exploit the cheapest global electricity, hinting at its prospective positive role in the broader energy transition. “They’d have learned that Bitcoin is driven to find the cheapest electricity in the world, and such a buyer, if flexible, portable, and scalable, is, in the long run, a good thing for the energy transition… They haven’t,” the expert remarked.
One of Cross’s most stinging critiques centered on Greenpeace’s modus operandi. He contended, “What HAVE they done? Hector Bitcoiners. Shame is their only tool.”
Going further, he insinuated that Greenpeace might be pushing an agenda that serves the vested interests of certain donors rather than genuine environmentalism. He hinted, “Their underlying motive seems more aligned with creating reputational risk for Bitcoin enthusiasts and pushing for anti-Bitcoin legislation.”
Bitcoiners Defend Home Turf
Cross also drew parallels with the nuclear energy sector, noting how both were initially misunderstood as emerging technologies. However, he accentuated BTC’s distinction, emphasizing it as a people-driven movement with tens of thousands of informed supporters. “But nuclear [power] wasn’t a people’s movement. Bitcoin is. There are tens of thousands of us who are educated… And we’re defending home turf.”
Concluding his detailed post, Cross highlighted the ongoing innovations in BTC mining and pointed to the absurdity of previous alarmist predictions. He referenced the 2017 Newsweek/WEF headline that inaccurately claimed BTC would consume all of the world’s energy by 2020. With a final nod to the resilience and innovation of the community, he confidently proclaimed, “We are going to win.”
In this fiery and data-laden retort, Cross not only debunked Greenpeace’s claims but also laid down a gauntlet for a more informed and nuanced debate on the intersection of Bitcoin and environmental sustainability.
At press time, BTC traded at $28,430, up 2.1% in the last 24 hours.
