New FUD! It's been a quiet year for @Earthjustice til now. Maybe their funding from Ripple ran out? (Yes, Earthjustice was one of the beneficiaries of crypto-Billionaire Chris Larsen's 5M donation to run an anti-Bitcoin campaign). Maybe their funding generally is running low? Maybe in response to low donations, they felt the need to whip up some moral outrage: the currency upon which their campaigns run (increasingly irrespective of whether that outrage has an evidential basis)? I did notice the red "Take action" button at the bottom of the article where users can donate, believing their donation will help "Build a clean and equitable electricity grid" (It won't: Bitcoin mining is doing that already. All it will do is pay for the circulation of more low quality reporting) But whatever the reason, they've just picked another fight with the Bitcoin mining community with a new swathe of old, long debunked misinformation on Bitcoin mining. It recycles two tired and soundly debunked claims that Bitcoin mining 1. destabilizes grids It doesn't it helps stabilize them - an incredible feature of Bitcoin mining backed up by 3 peer reviewed studies, 2 independent whitepapers, and the grid operator of ERCOT himself who said "Bitcoin mining has helped stabilize our grid." Pretty unambiguous. 2. raises costs for retail consumers. It doesn't: it helps keep them low. Another amazing feature of Bitcoin mining, backed up by a Whitepaper released just last week from Duke University, and by the grid operator of ERCOT himself who said "Bitcoin mining helps keep the cost of power low for all Texans" Their sole basis for the claim was that 2 Earthjustice attorneys - yes attorneys - found what grid operators, renewable operators, Bitcoin miners, energy experts (basically the people with the qualification to write about Bitcoin mining) already knew : that Bitcoin miners area really good at chasing the lowest cost of power, typically partly or wholly surplus, stranded, or wasted power in the wrong place, or at the wrong time of day or that others cannot access, or cannot utilize in the same flexible way that allows grid owners to better balance their grid. But to infer from this well known datapoint that this means other power users pay more? This shows the level of echo-chamber and level of non-engagement with wholesale energy markets, grid operators, and energy experts that Earthjustice has made its brand of late. A community in Norway found out how Bitcoin miner lower electricity prices for everyone, the hard way in just Nov last year, after an exodus of Bitcoin mining raised prices 20% for everyone because of the large drop in revenue this caused the grid operator. Just an idea @Earthjustice : maybe next time you want to write a piece about energy, Bitcoin datacenters, grids and electricity price dynamics, you get some people who know about energy, Bitcoin datacenters, grids and electricity price dynamics (like Duke University did). I know, crazy idea right? But give it a go. Then perhaps bring your team out of their echo-chamber into 2025 by sitting them down and explaining patiently to them that a lot has changed about Bitcoin mining since 2021 (better research, vastly improved data, and the greening of Bitcoin mining itself). Then share with them that 14 of the last 16 papers on Bitcoin and energy show unambiguous positive environmental impacts from Bitcoin mining), a conclusion shared by 90% of sustainability magazines who cover Bitcoin mining and even the majority (85.7%) of mainstream news coverage since 2023. Then share with them that even your spurious claim you've been saying since 2022 that Bitcoin mining offers no community benefits has been debunked as rubbish by a report released just last week that showed Bitcoin mining: * created 31,000 jobs * helps stabilize the grid while offering a range of other direct community benefits * brought 4.1 billion in annual U.S. gross product Then share with them that Bitcoin mining has been found to offer a number of decarbonization benefits at scale, which other technologies cannot offer, and which you claim to care about in addition to stabilizing the grid and keeping electricity prices low, including: * reducing methane emissions (Sechrest et al, 2024) * obviating the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) * halving the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) * accelerating the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2003) * accelerating renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024) * averting the need for expensive grid upgrades (Norris et al, 2025) Then do some soul searching and ask yourselves why you didn't know this, didn't share this, still don't believe it (hint: its the same reason that those you right don't believe in climate science and like you ignore the scientific consensus, ie: a potent combination of confirmation bias + groupthink) Until then, I look forward to your next piece in the genre of "two attorneys writing outside their swimlane"