Greenpeace Ripple Donation Allegations Put Environmental Charity Funding Under Scrutiny
New greenpeace report on BTC mining is allegedly inaccurate, claims crypto community. | Credit: Markus Heine/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Key Takeaways
- Greenpeace’s “Mining for Power” report was slammed for outdated info by social media and industry experts.
- Online debate erupts as critics challenge Greenpeace report with community notes.
- Greenpeace faces accusations of spreading misinformation, particularly regarding the initial sections of the report.
The “Mining for Power” report by Greenpeace USA, aimed at shedding light on the connections between the Bitcoin mining industry and fossil fuel companies, has sparked considerable controversy across social media platforms.
Critics of the report have leveraged community notes to highlight what they perceive as significant inaccuracies within the document.
Neither Greenpeace nor Ripple responded immediately to a request for comment.
Greenpeace Report on BTC Mining Backlashed for Alleged Inaccuracies
Among the primary concerns raised are the allegations that the report relies on outdated information. Critics say it presents a skewed portrayal of Bitcoin mining activities. Social network users have detailed these purported factual errors, suggesting the report does not accurately reflect the current state or practices of the Bitcoin mining industry.
The report claims to expose the connections between Bitcoin mining, fossil fuel companies, and conservative lobbies. However, critics argue the 36-page document offers a misleading view. They say it claims most of the power for Bitcoin mining comes from fossil fuels. The report also says the network’s carbon footprint has grown over time. Furthermore, the report says Bitcoin’s energy demand is exerting pressure on electrical grids and driving up costs for consumers.
Greenpeace Accused of Misinformation
The report by Greenpeace highlighted a “revolving door” phenomenon. It showcased connections between
- Bitcoin mining entities.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
- Organizations funded by the Koch brothers
- Former officials from the Trump Administration.
This depiction, however, was strongly criticized by Daniel Batten, a managing partner at CH4 Capital and an analyst focused on the energy consumption of Bitcoin.
Batten criticized the report for containing a significant amount of what he described as misinformation. He accused Greenpeace of disseminating false information, suggesting such actions diminish the organization’s influence and potential to serve as a constructive agent for environmental change.
Was This Orchestrated By Ripple? – Community Claims So!
The crypto community has raised concerns and began scrutiny following a recent report by GreenpeaceUSA, particularly spotlighting a $5 million funding contribution from Ripple. Critics argue this was aimed at fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) around Bitcoin. Ripple, known for its XRPL blockchain network, has historically not taken a direct stance against Bitcoin. It has, however, occaisionally highlighted facts favoring its own cryptocurrency , XRP, over Bitcoin.
In a significant move in March 2022, Ripple became a part of the “Change the Code Not Bitcoin” campaign. This initiative, orchestrated by the Climate group in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group, GreenpeaceUSA, and various organizations opposing Bitcoin mining operations in their localities, received a reported $5 million in funding from Ripple to facilitate its activities.
The primary objective of this campaign was ambitious. It sought to rally the entire Bitcoin community behind a proposal to alter Bitcoin’s underlying code.
By advocating for this change, the campaign aimed to drastically reduce the energy consumption associated with Bitcoin mining by up to 99%, addressing one of the most contentious environmental issues linked to the cryptocurrency sector.
Community Disputes Greenpeace Data
However, Daniel Batten wasn’t the only one to dispute the findings and claims made in Greenpeace’s report. Another critic, submitted a community note challenging the report’s assertions and suggesting Greenpeace was being influenced by Ripple.
