Harvard University Study Claims Bitcoin Mining Causes Severe Air Pollution, Energy Experts Respond: “First Shoot the Arrow, Then Draw the Target!”

Table of Contents

• Research Content and Perspectives
• Experts Criticize: Flawed Methodology and Selective Data
• DARI Issues Formal Rebuttal
• Bitcoin Mining is Beneficial to the Environment
• Is There Political Calculation Behind the Biased Report?

Research Content and Perspectives

The study tracked 34 large Bitcoin mining sites in the United States, claiming that they consumed a total of 32.3 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity between mid-2022 and mid-2023, which is 33% higher than the total electricity consumption of the city of Los Angeles, with 85% derived from fossil fuels. Researchers warned that Bitcoin mining in the U.S. remains largely in a “regulatory vacuum,” posing new challenges to environmental health and regulatory frameworks, and called for federal government intervention. The study also identified pollution hotspots including New York City, Northeast Texas, and areas bordering Illinois and Kentucky, where mining operations emit the highest levels of pollution, potentially threatening the health of local residents.

Experts Criticize: Flawed Methodology and Selective Data

Climate tech investor and co-founder of CH4 Capital, Daniel Batten, stated in a media interview that the study has “serious flaws,” suggesting it was like “shooting an arrow and then drawing a target,” having predetermined from the outset that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, and then selectively choosing data and methods that support this conclusion.
Daniel Batten pointed out that the study employed the “marginal emissions model” developed by WattTime to calculate pollution resulting from electricity use, a model that, while widely used, operates within a non-public system unsuitable for long-term annual emissions analysis and does not undergo academic peer review. He also criticized the study for predominantly citing news reports, lacking peer-reviewed papers from experts in the field, and for only selecting 34 mining sites while ignoring many Bitcoin mining operations that utilize renewable energy, suggesting that this selective sampling severely distorts the study’s results. Furthermore, Daniel Batten noted that one of the co-authors of the study, Gabriel Dance, is a journalist for The New York Times who had previously written another Bitcoin mining report criticized for exaggerating data and methodological errors, commenting, “This study looks like an academic version of that report.”

DARI Issues Formal Rebuttal

In response to the research from Harvard University, the Digital Asset Research Institute (DARI) also issued a rebuttal statement, pointing out its selective use of data, erroneous attribution of emissions, improper application of marginal emissions, and excessive reliance on news sources and a limited number of selected papers to construct a singular narrative. DARI emphasized that the environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining cannot be interpreted unilaterally, as there is a wealth of more balanced, data-driven research indicating its contributions to renewable energy, enhanced grid stability, and reduced methane emissions.

Bitcoin Mining is Beneficial to the Environment

Daniel Batten further cited 20 positive, peer-reviewed papers published since 2022, which demonstrate how Bitcoin mining helps accelerate the payback time for solar energy, supports microgrids, and reduces methane emissions from landfills, yet were overlooked by the Harvard research team. He also pointed out that the study’s claim that mining machines could be repurposed for other computational uses “demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of the industry,” as other uses (such as AI data centers) typically result in higher fossil fuel consumption, whereas Bitcoin mining assists in decarbonizing the grid.

Is There Political Calculation Behind the Biased Report?

The publication of this paper coincides with the Trump administration’s active push to position the United States as a “Bitcoin mining powerhouse,” with Trump recently signing an executive order to promote the revival of the domestic coal industry. Notably, the Trump administration had earlier this month suspended $2.2 billion in federal funding originally slated for Harvard University and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status due to the university’s refusal to comply with demands to restrict student activities, disband diversity programs, and alter admissions policies.