The loud hum sparking unrest in Trump's MAGA heartlands
Coming from the nearby Greenidge Generation power plant, which had been mothballed for years before, the sound has angered some local people.
"It's an annoyance," says Ellen Campbell, who owns a house on Seneca Lake a short distance away. "If I sit out by the lake, I would rather not hear that.
"We didn't sign up for the constant hum."
The issue here in Dresden, a village of about 300 people surrounded by winding country roads, single-track rail lines and farms growing grapes and hops, sounds like a familiar story about the tension between nature-loving locals and economic development.
But their annoyance is also a signal of something less expected – policies of US President Donald Trump meeting resistance from people in the rural areas whose votes drove his return to the White House.
And the cause? Bitcoin mining.
An energy-intensive process that relies on powerful computers to create and protect the cryptocurrency, Bitcoin mining has grown rapidly in the country over recent years. The current administration, unlike Joe Biden's, is intent on encouraging the industry.
Trump has said he wants to turn the US into the crypto-mining capital of the world, announcing in June 2024 that "we want all the remaining Bitcoin to be made in the USA". This has implications for rural communities throughout the US – many of whom voted for Trump.
Installations like the one at the power plant near Dresden are appearing across the country, drawn by record-high cryptocurrency prices and cheap and abundant energy to power the computers that do the mining. There are at least 137 Bitcoin mines in the US across 21 states, and reports indicate there are many more planned. According to estimates by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Bitcoin mining uses up to 2.3% of the nation's grid.
The high energy use and its wider environmental impact is certainly causing some concern in Dresden.
But it's the unmistakable hum that is the soundtrack for discontent in many places with Bitcoin mines - produced by the fans used to cool the computers, it can range from a mechanical whirr to a deafening din.
"We can hear a constant buzzing," says another Dresden resident, Lori Fishline. "It's a constant, loud humming noise that you just can't ignore. It was never present before and has definitely affected the peaceful atmosphere of our bay."
Such is Ms Campbell's annoyance with Trump's Bitcoin backing, her political allegiance to the Republicans is being tested. "Right now I'm not real happy about that party," she says.
The conflict in Seneca Lake is being played out nationwide, which could pose problems for a White House intent on pursuing a pro-cryptocurrency agenda.
A little over 300 miles west of Dresden, a backlash in the US border town of Niagara Falls prompted the local Mayor Robert Restaino - a Democrat - to issue a moratorium on new mining activity in December 2021, and the following year noise limits of 40 to 50 decibels near residential areas were imposed. He said: "The noise pollution of this industry is like nothing else."
Locals described the sound as similar to that of a 747 jet, or as grating as having a toothache 24 hours a day, claiming that the noise drowned out the sound of the nearby waterfalls.
And in Granbury, Texas, a 24ft-high sound barrier was erected in 2023 at a mining site after residents complained to public officials that the nonstop roar was keeping them awake and giving them migraines.
All these Bitcoin operations opened before Trump's return to the White House. But the opposition they have generated suggests public officials in Republican-voting areas are likely to find themselves coming under continued pressure from local people who oppose further Bitcoin mining expansion.
If this happens, could Trump's crypto dreams be derailed in his own backyard?
Less than four years ago, Trump said Bitcoin "just seems like a scam". Yet those reservations have now gone: the Trump family has since started the crypto firm World Liberty Financial, and Trump launched his own cryptocurrency, $TRUMP – 220 of its top buyers were invited to a private gala dinner with the president on Thursday.
Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr are behind a crypto mining venture called American Bitcoin, which plans to trade on the Nasdaq stock exchange, and aims to build one of the world's largest and most efficient Bitcoin mining platforms, rooted in American soil.
Bitcoin mining has boomed in the US partly because of a crackdown in China in 2021, which was due to concerns over its environmental damage. Alexander Neumueller, an expert at the University of Cambridge's Centre for Alternative Finance, says that although it's hard to trace every last mine, it's clear that the US is now the leading Bitcoin producer, mining about 40% of the world's supply.
Dresden is in New York's Finger Lakes region – a rural area sliced through with deep glacial lakes, which attracts tourists drawn by its wineries, breweries and outdoor pursuits. In Yates County, home to Dresden and the Greenidge plant, around 60% of voters picked Trump last November.
According to the owners of the mine, Greenidge Generation, anywhere from 40 to 120 Bitcoin a month are being produced at the plant, along with some energy that flows back to the grid.
The company – which turned down requests for an interview – has argued that they converted a coal-burning operation into a relatively cleaner gas-fired power installation that complies with state environmental laws.
But amid public concern, New York state and Greenidge are currently engaged in a protracted legal battle over the plant's future. With some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, New York officials are challenging whether the gas-fired plant is permitted under the regulations that allowed the old coal plant. Power generation – and Bitcoin mining – has been allowed to continue during appeal proceedings.
Abi Buddington, who owns a house in Dresden and has been at the forefront of the fight against the crypto mine, says it has become a big issue locally.
"The climate changed, both environmentally as well as in our quiet little community," she says, recalling raised voices at contentious town hall meetings.
Ms Buddington is trying to change minds in Dresden and, through her network, elsewhere around the country.
"There are some who are environmentally concerned, and who may be Republican-leaning," she says. "What we've found nationally is even in red states, once elected officials are educated properly and know the harms, they are very opposed."
But not all are convinced. "They've been a good corporate neighbour," says Dresden's recently elected mayor, Brian Flynn, about the mine. "I'm pro-business, whether it be Greenidge or local agriculture… I think it's important to have a mix of both industry and recreation."
Legal battles like the one in Seneca Lake are bringing home the realities of an industry that at first glance might seem contained to banks of data servers, removed from the real world.
Bitcoin "miners" – who are not actually extracting anything from the earth – verify transactions by solving extremely difficult cryptographic problems that require powerful computers. In return, they are rewarded with Bitcoin.
As the price of Bitcoin has shot up to its current value of around $100,000 (£75,000), ever-increasing amounts of computing power have been needed to win crypto rewards, shutting out smaller miners in favour of large collectives and companies.
As well as the hum, mining's energy use has environmental impacts. A Harvard study published in March in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature Communications found that Bitcoin mining exposes millions of Americans to harmful air pollution each year - and that 34 Bitcoin mines consumed a third more electricity than the city of LA. (There was some pushback from the crypto industry to the study, which was called The environmental burden of the United States' Bitcoin mining boom.)
According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, mining globally uses approximately 0.7% of global electricity consumption.
That has a knock-on effect on local energy prices, which is also provoking a backlash in some areas.
In 2017, Bitcoin miners flooded into Plattsburgh, New York – a city of about 20,000 people a couple of hours to the north of Dresden – because of cheap hydroelectricity rates. "We were getting Bitcoin applications from operators all around the world," says the city's mayor at the time, Colin Read.
Yet they used so much power that electricity rates shot up. Within a year, some residents were paying up to 40% more during winter months, Read says.
The following year, he and other local lawmakers passed rules against buildings blasting out hot air.
"Fortunately we put a stop to it," he says, noting that all but one Bitcoin mining operation left the city.
Resistance to Bitcoin mines extends to places with the biggest Trump support.
Cyndie Roberson was retired and unaware of the crypto industry until a Bitcoin mining operation moved to her small town in North Carolina in 2021. The locals banded together and managed to ban new Bitcoin developments in their area - but the existing one was allowed to stay and the bitterness of the fight made her decide to move south, to Gilmer County in Georgia.
There, Ms Roberson has campaigned against crypto mining in a region that is solidly pro-Republican. In the county where she lives, she says that around 1,000 people came to a public meeting to oppose a mine, which then wasn't allowed to operate.
Just north of Gilmer, the Fannin County Commission has enacted a ban on crypto mining, while a Georgian commission representing 18 primarily rural counties has published advice on how to restrict the development of Bitcoin mines.
"When you're in my backyard, when you're in my town, trying to wreck our property and our peace, people will tell you, it's a hard 'no'," says Ms Roberson.
Although 80% of local people backed Trump last November, that support doesn't appear to stop people opposing one of his key crypto goals.
The Trump administration is not planning to do away with all regulations around crypto mining - but it is ready to actively help companies open power plants next to the mines.
In an interview with Bitcoin Magazine in April, commerce secretary Howard Lutnick said: "We're going to make it so that if you want to mine Bitcoin, and you find the right place to do it, you can build your own power plant next to it," going on to argue that such projects would stop "these stories about 'You're taking too much power and now the cost of operating my refrigerator is higher'."
"The next generation of miners in America will be able to control their destiny, control the cost of power, and I think that is going to turbocharge Bitcoin mining in America," Lutnick told the magazine.
According to Zack Shapiro, head of policy at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, a US think tank that researches emerging monetary networks, that process has already begun. "There are states that are passing laws specifically prohibiting municipalities from banning Bitcoin mines," he says. "It's a mechanism by which mining companies can fight back."
And the nature of Bitcoin mining means that, if it meets resistance, it can quickly move on to somewhere more favourable.
When Colin Read tackled the mines in Plattsburgh, he saw how easily they could change location.
"This industry is really footloose," he said. "When we told these companies they couldn't have more power without going through hoops, they packed up and went to a community where they didn't have such strict requirements."
Local opposition is not Trump's only challenge. Could the sea, for example, be a better location for Bitcoin mining?
Mr Shapiro believes that, with miners looking for the lowest cost, they could turn to leftover renewable energy that can't be used by other applications. "Wind power in the ocean can't be used to power a city, but you can set up an offshore platform that captures offshore wind and tidal energy, and use that to mine Bitcoin – because there's not another buyer to use that energy, it's probably ultimately where Bitcoin mining operations move."
It could also be that in the cryptocurrency race, Bitcoin might not be the best bet. Read - who is an energy economist - is sceptical about the staying power of energy-intensive Bitcoin because he believes other more efficient alternatives are going to emerge.
With the White House egging on the industry, fights over Bitcoin mining will inevitably play out in smaller forums, in state and local governments and tiny places like Dresden.
But one constant in the short history of Bitcoin has been volatility. It might be boom times now – yet a downturn in the price, shifts in energy sources and changing crypto needs could fundamentally reshape the Bitcoin mining landscape, no matter how much Trump wants to keep it in the US.
Trump's frantic week of peace brokering hints at what he really wants
The secretive US factory that lays bare the contradiction in Trump's America First plan
Gold is booming - but investors lured in by the hype could lose out, warn experts
Top picture credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we'll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we'll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We're starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Chicago Tribune
11 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
California pushes partisan plan for new Democratic districts to counter Texas in fight for US House
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday his state will hold a Nov. 4 special election to seek approval of redrawn districts intended to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats in the fight for control of Congress. The move is a direct response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority in the midterm elections. The nation's two most populous states have emerged as the center of a partisan turf war in the House that could spiral into other states — as well as the courts — in what amounts to a proxy war ahead of the 2026 elections. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that could help them send five more Republicans to Washington. Democrats who so far have halted a vote by leaving the state announced Thursday that they will return home if Texas Republicans end their current special session and California releases its own recast map proposal. Both were expected to happen Friday. However, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call another special session to push through new maps. Texas House Democrats planning their departure from Illinois and back to AustinIn Los Angeles, Newsom staged what amounted to a campaign kickoff rally for the as-yet unreleased new maps with the state's Democratic leadership in a downtown auditorium packed with union members, legislators and abortion rights supporters. Newsom and other speakers veered from discussing the technical grist of reshaping districts — known as redistricting — and instead depicted the looming battle as a conflict with all things Trump, tying it explicitly to the fate of American democracy. 'We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across the country,' Newsom said. 'We are not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future.' An overarching theme was the willingness to stand up to Trump, a cheer-inducing line for Democrats as the party looks to regroup from its 2024 losses. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back,' said Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender. Thursday's announcement marks the first time any state beyond Texas has officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight. The Texas plan was stalled when minority Democrats fled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts on Aug. 3 to stop the Legislature from passing any bills. Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write new maps. In Missouri, a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members. In California, lawmakers must officially declare the special election, which they plan to do next week after voting on the new maps. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom said he's not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Newsom encouraged other Democratic-led states to get involved. 'We need to stand up — not just California. Other blue states need to stand up,' Newsom said. Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among states that rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Some people already have said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. Outside Newsom's news conference Thursday, U.S. Border Patrol agents conducted patrols, drawing condemnation from the governor and others. 'We're here making Los Angeles a safer place since we don't have politicians that will do that,' Gregory Bovino, chief of the patrol's El Centro, California, sector, told a reporter with KTTV in Los Angeles. He said he didn't know Newsom was inside nearby.
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
