March, 29 2022, 11:07am EDT
Change The Code: Not The Climate - Greenpeace USA, EWG, Others Launch Campaign to Push Bitcoin to Reduce Climate Pollution
Bitcoin is already using as much power as Sweden. Other crypto-currencies use 99% less electricity
WASHINGTON
A campaign to push Bitcoin to change its software code to use far less energy was launched today by the Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace USA, and several groups battling Bitcoin mining facilities in their communities. Decrying Bitcoin's growing greenhouse gas pollution, the campaign asks Bitcoin to change its code - not the climate. The campaign website, www.cleanupbitcoin.com, enables the public to join the campaign.
The initial campaign includes digital advertising in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, MarketWatch, Politico and on Facebook. The ads include messages like: "Bitcoin: Proof that Money Isn't Always Green," "Does Bitcoin Actually Use More Power Than All of Sweden? Hell Ja," "Hey Jack Dorsey. You Could Help Stop Bitcoin's Pollution With a Tweet," "Hey Fidelity. The Planet's Not Ready for Early Retirement," "If Only a Few Dozen People Agreed to Change Bitcoin, It Would Stop Polluting the Planet," and others.
Coalition members will also be mobilizing their large memberships to push Bitcoin's biggest investors and influencers -- many of whom have announced climate commitments -- to exert leadership and call for a code change. It will also explore legal and regulatory efforts.
Bitcoin uses a software code, Proof of Work, that requires the use of massive computer arrays to validate and secure transactions. Based on estimates by the University of Cambridge, these currently use as much electricity in a year as Greece, Sweden or the Netherlands. Yet Bitcoin's use of electricity is expected to grow - it increases along with its price. A recent article in Nature Climate Change estimated that, if use of Bitcoin becomes widespread, it could push the world beyond the 2 degree Celsius warming threshold for climate catastrophe.
About 50 key Bitcoin miners, exchanges and core developers have the power to make a software change - as they did once before, in 2017. It can be done: one of Bitcoin's major competitors, Ethereum, is now transitioning from this energy-wasting code to another which will use 99.9% less electricity without devastating climate and pollution consequences. Many other crypto currencies already use a low-energy code.
After China banned Bitcoin mining, many operations moved to the United States. Some of them are buying up polluting coal plants that were on the brink of bankruptcy and scheduled to be retired, and even plants that burn coal waste, which emits up to 50% more greenhouse gases than even dirty coal itself. Others are using fracked gas, which also heats the planet. In some communities, electricity prices have increased due to competition for power from massive Bitcoin mining operations.
"The science is clear: to prevent run-away climate change, we need to start phasing out fossil fuels and investing in the clean energy economy," explained Greenpeace USA Chief Program Officer Tefere Gebre. "No matter how you feel about Bitcoin, pushing those with the power to ensure a code change will make our planet and communities safer from the destructive impacts of climate change. What we do have is a solution: Change the Code. Not the Climate."
"The 'currency of the future' is dragging us into the past when it comes to the urgent battle to save the climate," said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook. "Our planet can't afford Bitcoin's excessive and unnecessary energy use and associated pollution. EWG urges the Bitcoin community to go back to its visionary roots and 'Change the Code, Not the Climate.' Join Ethereum, the second-ranked cryptocurrency by market cap, and immediately commit to smarter, infinitely more efficient crypto technology."
"According to a recent report in the scientific journal Joule, Kentucky produces more carbon from cryptocurrency mining than any other state," explained Lane Boldman, Executive Director of the Kentucky Conservation Committee. "Because of lucrative tax breaks and existing energy infrastructure, this state has rapidly expanded to provide 18.7% of Bitcoin's collective computing power for mining, second to New York's 19.9%. However, many of these operations are coming to distressed areas long exploited for energy. It is frustrating to see these financial incentives benefit companies working in communities that may not even have reliable water."
"Bitcoin miners are eager to take advantage of lax regulation in Pennsylvania," added Penn Future Senior Director for Energy and Climate Rob Altenburg. "Power plants burning highly polluting waste coal have been turned into mining operations. Portable generators and mining hardware have shown up unannounced at fracked-gas well sites. Not only are taxpayers and ratepayers paying the price, we all pay the price of increased pollution."
"Governor Kathy Hochul must act now to curtail outside speculators from wreaking irreversible havoc on our communities and the planet by imposing a moratorium on proof-of work crypto mining," said Yvonne Taylor, Vice President of Seneca Lake Guardian. "With 20% of the nation's climate-killing Bitcoin mining, New York has become the wild west for a risky currency favored by authoritarian states and criminals, that's threatening our very real $3 billion/year agritourism industry including 60,000 jobs. Having just lived through a massive respiratory pandemic that killed 67,000 New Yorkers, the last thing we need is repowered or expanded coal and gas plants pumping poisonous greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It's not enough to talk about climate, Governor Hochul has a responsibility to lead, not just New York, but the nation by acting now."
"We are calling on the Bitcoin community to change to a low-energy code," explained Michael Brune, campaign advisor and former Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "This could mean switching to proof of stake, federated consensus, or even changing Proof of Work to use far less energy. We won't prescribe the exact solution, but we demand urgent action to save our climate and future."
"This campaign is not anti-Bitcoin - it is anti-pollution," explained Chris Larsen, whose climate foundation is the initial funder of the campaign. Larsen is the Chairman of Ripple. "We need to clean up our industry. And the issue is not, as some have suggested, powering Bitcoin with clean energy. We need the limited supply of clean energy for other vital uses. The issue is changing the code to use far less energy. That's the environmentally responsible way forward."
If Bitcoin's code is not changed, coalition members fear that mining could keep moving around the world and burn more and more fossil fuels, raising global temperatures even further.
Speakers at the press conference launching the campaign included: Tefere Gebre, Chief Program Officer of Greenpeace USA; Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group; Yvonne Taylor, VP, Seneca Lake Guardian; Lane Boldman, Director of Kentucky Conservation Committee; Chris Larsen, Chairman of Ripple and climate activist; Michael Brune, former Executive Director, Sierra Club; and Jared Stonesifer, Director of Media Relations for PennFuture.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
How Trump's $1,000 for 'Voluntary Self-Deportation' Could Harm Undocumented Immigrants
One legal expert warned the offer from DHS "would sabotage" pending or future cases people might have in immigration court.
May 05, 2025
The Trump administration on Monday announced what it called "historic travel assistance and stipend for voluntary self-deportation," prompting one expert to issue a warning to undocumented immigrants who may consider the offer.
"If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest, and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a key leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda. "This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens, and is a 70% savings for U.S. taxpayers."
According to a statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), immigrants who use the CBP Home smartphone application to self-deport will receive "financial and travel assistance" as well as "a stipend of $1,000 dollars, paid after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app."
DHS framed the offer as "a dignified way to leave" the United States without encountering Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and claimed people who submit their intent to self-deport in the app "will also be deprioritized for detention and removal ahead of their departure as long as they demonstrate they are making meaningful strides in completing that departure."
"DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Responding to the announcement on social media, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, stressed that "it is incredibly important for all reporting on this to emphasize that DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Reichlin-Melnick explained that "when a person is in immigration court proceedings, if they don't appear for a hearing, they get ordered deported—even if they're provably outside the country already. And having a deportation order makes it VERY hard to ever come back legally. DHS's offer would sabotage cases!"
"This move also raises VERY serious questions about statutory authority and funding sources. No law directly authorizes DHS to pay plane tickets and offer reimbursements to people leaving the country," he added. "The closest legal authority which might apply here is 8 USC § 1260, which authorizes using funding to deport 'aliens falling into distress' who are 'desirous of being so removed.' But that law also imposes a near-total ban on reentry, so if DHS is using that it's even worse!"
Prism immigration reporter Tina Vasquez shared a message from the app on social media Monday.
The CBP Home app features this flyer, with the many supposed benefits of self-deportation.
[image or embed]
— Tina Vasquez (@tinavasquez.bsky.social) May 5, 2025 at 10:40 AM
"I previously reported on how the Biden administration's attempt to modernize the immigration system through tech actually made things for immigrants more difficult," Vasquez noted. "I'm anxious to see how this app plays out in the deeply unfortunate cases where $1,000 is an incentive to self-deport."
"I also know that if the Biden [administration] offered $1,000 to undocumented immigrants—even for self-deportation—right-wing media would have screamed that Democrats were paying 'illegal aliens' with taxpayer dollars," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional toldDeadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House toldPolitico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadlinereported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Asks the Fed to Reconsider Approval of Capital One-Discover Merger
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters.
May 05, 2025
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California are urging the Federal Reserve to reconsider its approval of an impending merger between Capital One Financial Corporation and Discover Financial Services, a tie-up that critics have warned could harm consumers.
In a letter sent last week, Warren and Waters wrote that the decision to approve the merger by the Federal Reserve "was inconsistent with the legal requirements" under the Bank Holding Company Act. They also argued that it did not include a number of relevant assessments, including how the the merger would impact the "convenience and needs of the community" or the "competitive effects on the credit card market."
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses, and threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system," states the letter, which was addressed to Secretary of the Board Ann Misback and dated May 1.
Warren is the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Waters is the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
The deal was announced in February 2024 and is valued at $35 billion. A report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released right before the acquisition was announced found that the largest credit card firms charge much higher interest rates than smaller banks and credit unions.
The deal initially received some scrutiny around possible impacts to competition, but in April 2025 overcame a major obstacle when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), now under the Trump administration, decided not to challenge the merger.
The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency gave the deal the green light last month.
In response to the DOJ's decision not to challenge the merger, Morgan Harper, the director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote that "if the Trump administration green-lights the Capital One-Discover merger, it will be a betrayal of working-class Americans and small businesses." The American Economic Liberties Project is an anti-monopoly research and advocacy group.
"If the deal goes through, Capital One will become the largest credit card lender in the country, the first major issuer in decades to control its own payments network, and entrench its striking dominance in subprime credit card lending," Harper continued.
One noteworthy aspect of the merger, which is expected to be finalized mid-May, is that Capital One is set to acquire Discover's card network. This means the combined firm would be akin to a larger version of American Express, "a stand-alone integrated system that could use its millions of customers to push higher fees onto merchants," according to The American Prospect.
Capitol One currently uses Visa and Mastercard credit card networks, which operate an effective duopoly of global payment processing, but has said it would transition to the Discover card network, according the outlet CNET.
This aspect of the merger is without clear precedent and raises concerns about competition, according to Jesse Van Tol, the chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a group that is opposed to the deal, who spoke to The New York Times in April.
"The market power it gives them, and the opportunity it gives them to set pricing in ways that captures a lot of value for the company at the expense of the consumer, is significant," Van Tol told the Times.
In their letter, Warren and Waters alleged that the Federal Reserve failed to adequately scrutinize the competitive effect of this aspect of the deal.
"The board argued that given 'the significant, larger competitors that would remain,' and that Capital One doesn't currently own a network, there aren't any competitive concerns. The board completely missed the fact that the merger would provide Capital One with significant market power to increase interchange fees charged to merchants and reduce rewards and other benefits for consumers. It didn't grapple with the implications of vertical integration and network effects," the two wrote.
When considering the conveniences and needs of the community, Warren and Waters said in their letter that the Federal Reserve did not perform the prospective analysis required by law, and instead "focused on each bank's past performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)," even though "the convenience and needs of the community is a distinct legal factor, separate and apart from banks' past performance under the CRA."
The two also said that the Federal Reserve appears to not have taken into consideration relevant findings from the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the DOJ.
Bloombergreported last week that the Federal Reserve received the letter and plans to response, per a spokesperson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular