The US rural communities bearing the brunt of Bitcoin mining – DW – 06/30/2025
In the quiet village of Dresden on the western shore of Seneca Lake in thestate of New York, the fire whistle blows like clockwork at noon every day. Residents don't mind; it's a familiar sound that blends into the rhythm of their small-town life.
But there's one noise some of the 300 villagers cannot stand and that's the constant, mechanical droning of Greenidge Generation. This former coal-fired facility is now a natural gas "peaking plant" that supplies electricity to New York during high demand. Since 2019, it has also powered an energy-gulping Bitcoin mine.
Locals say some days the sound it emits is like a refrigerator humming in the background, but when the wind shifts just right, it becomes more of a roar.
Winton Buddington, who owns a home in Dresden, said "it was a nice and peaceful community," until 2017. "Then, Atlas Holdings purchased the property."
Retired nurse Beth Cain says research shows that constant noise "does affect people. It creates stress for your system," she said, adding that it's like "having tinnitus."
But the unwanted soundscape is not the only concern locals share about the plant, which also discharges hot water into the lake and emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Many in the community, including Yvonne Taylor, vice president of Seneca Lake Guardian, a grassroots environmental advocacy group in upstate New York, fear that Greenidge poses a threat to the broader region whose wineries and Mennonite farms are big visitor attractions.
"[The wine and tourism industry] is our driving economic engine, and all of those jobs rely heavily on clean air and clean water for survival," Taylor said.
Large-scale crypto-mining operations such as the one in Dresden consume massive amounts of energy, using thousands of computer servers to compete in solving mathematical problems that validate blockchain transactions. By 2021, the Greenidge facility was generating about 44 megawatts to mine Bitcoin, which is enough to power up to 40,000 homes — depending on their consumption levels.
"Each one of those machines has to solve a puzzle. Each machine can solve that puzzle about 100 trillion times every second," said Colin Read, author of The Bitcoin Dilemma: Weighing the Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits.And that requires a lot of energy, which generates a lot of emissions.
Citing Greenidge's own data, the environmental law group Earthjustice said the facility emitted almost 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide and CO2 equivalents in 2023 — on a par with the tailpipe emissions of over 170,000 cars.According to the US Energy Information Administration, 137 cryptomining facilities were already operating in the country at the start of 2024. The current government has not yet released new figures, but Troy Cross, philosophy professor at Reed College in the US city of Portland and senior fellow at the nonpartisan Bitcoin Policy Institute expects that under self-proclaimed "crypto president" Donald Trump, Bitcoin companies will face fewer barriers when scouting for new mining locations.
"Trump will make it easier for the large Bitcoin mining companies in the US, and especially in West Texas," he said, in reference to the state being a leading producer of coal and natural gas. It's also among the top states in solar and wind energy generation.Since coming to office, the president has already formed a working group to draft pro-crypto regulations and has announced a national reserve to stockpile digital assets. In a sharp reversal of his earlier stance that Bitcoin was "not money" and a "scam," he has even launched his own meme coin.
Taylor says Bitcoin mines are "spreading across the country like a cancer," adding that "slick crypto corporations" are popping up in rural underserved communities with promises of job creation and earnings.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
But pointing to the fact that the Greenidge Bitcoin mine employed 48 people full-time in 2022 — about as many as in a typical McDonald's — she said experience shows that such claims "fall short."
Margot Paez, of the Bitcoin Policy Council, who studies cryptocurrency mining in New York State says Greenidge's decision to co-locate its Bitcoin mine with a natural gas plant is a "terrible" idea. But she adds that the site is just "one bad apple," suggesting that Bitcoin miners should tap into renewables or support grid balancing.
In a draft environmental impact assessment of the 11 known crypto facilities within its borders, the state said the energy use from such operations "may contribute to challenges meeting New York's renewable energy transition goals."
The Greenidge plant's water use is also a concern for residents and environmentalists. Keeping the crypto mining computers running without overheating requires massive amounts of water. The facility is permitted to draw up to 139 million gallons (525 million liters) from Seneca Lake every day and dump back as many as 134 million gallons.
Having been used for cooling, however, the water returned to the lake is much warmer than when it was taken out. Temperatures range between 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) in the winter and 108 F (42 C) in the summer — which some locals say makes the lake too warm for kayakers and swimmers to enjoy.
Residents also worry the warm water could affect aquatic life and trigger more harmful algae blooms in the lake. In 2024, the state environment authorities recorded 377 algal blooms — up from 50 in 2023. Exposure to blooms can cause rashes, coughing, sore throat, stomach pain, and vomiting.Locals have been involved in legal action that has so far failed to halt the facility's operations. They are also part of a network of experts and activists from affected communities across 17 states that has reached out to Trump's crypto working group to explain the impacts of cryptocurrency policies on rural areas. They have not yet received a response.
In Dresden, where some residents rent out their properties to visitors who come for the lake, there are fears that proximity to Greenidge will hurt the local rental market.
Even 10 miles (16 kilometers) away in the city of Geneva, residents are concerned about the potential impact of the Bitcoin mining facility. Vinny Aliperti, owner of Billsboro Winery, said the plant hasn't affected his business yet — but he's confident it will.
"Clean lakes are a big part of agrotourism. They're the reason people visit the area and the wineries," he said.
Greenidge, which describes itself on its website as an "environmental leader in power generation and Bitcoin mining," had not responded to a request for comment by the time of publication.
The Torrey Town Board, which governs Dresden, said the plant has complied with all its codes, including an independent noise study.
"The Greenidge power plant has been an important part of the Town of Torrey since the 1930s, remaining so today as a valuable employer and community partner," it said.
The crypto mine has contributed to the community by donating to Dresden's volunteer fire department and the village playground and supporting businesses in the region during theCOVID-19 pandemic.
"They've done those things, but that's not something that we consider to be worth the trade-off of the pollution and the impact they're having on the environment," Buddington said.To play this audio please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 audio
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
11 hours ago
- DW
Why does the US use secondary sanctions, and do they work? – DW – 08/14/2025
Will Donald Trump's threat to use secondary sanctions slow Russian aggression or dampen its economy? Some see them as a powerful deterrent, while others think they are impossible to effectively enforce. After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the aggressor was hit with economic sanctions from the US, UK, European Union and others. These sanctions restricted domestic companies or individuals in how they trade and do business with Russia. The sanctions were an effort to make Russia change its course without resorting to direct military force. Since then, the sanctions have piled up. Russia's foreign assets have been frozen, and a majority of Russian banks have been cut off from the global banking system. To keep its economy going, Russia has redirected trade to other countries like China, India, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. To move its oil around the world, the country has turned to a fleet of "shadow tankers." To end this game of economic cat and mouse and bring Russia to ceasefire talks, the US Senate is working to pass a bipartisan bill that threatens "secondary sanctions" on countries that still do business with Russia. Primary sanctions are placed on foreign countries or entities, but they restrict the behavior of the sanctioning country's own citizens and businesses by limiting or prohibiting them from engaging with the sanctioned parties. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Secondary sanctions go a step further and extend to third-party countries, companies or individuals that do business with sanctioned parties. Even though these third-party entities aren't directly bound by the sanctioning country's laws, they are pressured to comply or face consequences should they do business in the sanctioning country. "Secondary sanctions do not attempt to force foreign subsidiaries to follow a sanctioning country's policies," according to John F. Forrer in a paper published by the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "The sanctioning country restricts its own firms and/or citizens from having commercial dealings with designated firms or individuals." The proposed US legislation would enable 500% tariffs on goods from any country that buys or sells Russian oil, uranium, natural gas and petroleum or petrochemical products. The United States is the biggest proponent of secondary sanctions. Their power stems from the importance of the US dollar on a global level and from the fear of losing access to the US market or its financial system. Since a significant amount of cross-border trade is in dollars or passes through the US banking system, this gives the country great leverage. For many countries, keeping this access is more important than doing business with sanctioned regimes. "While secondary sanctions can 'work' as part of the larger package, the intent, timing and credibility of the threat are important," said Lena Surzhko Harned, associate director of the Public Policy Initiative at Penn State Behrend. They are an important tool with symbolic power. "However, like all threats, it loses its power if it is not perceived as credible or other loopholes are found," Harned told DW. The Obama administration used secondary sanctions to target banks and other companies doing business in Iran in a successful effort to get the country to negotiate about limiting its nuclear program. More recently, the US has used secondary sanctions on Chinese firms trading with or handling financial transactions with North Korea. The US also introduced secondary sanctions against entities doing business with Venezuela, especially in the oil and financial sectors, in an effort to isolate the Nicolas Maduro regime. This past April, President Donald Trump imposed secondary tariffs on countries that import Venezuelan oil. This month, Trump issued an executive order, levying an additional 25% tariff on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Sidestepping Congress the president has threatened further secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy. Not every country is a pushover when it comes to secondary sanctions, and some find creative loopholes to avoid much of their economic impact. They rely on alternative currencies, such as the Chinese yuan or cryptocurrencies. Businesses or countries subject to sanctions can barter or use intermediaries or shell companies to conclude deals. Secondary sanctions are difficult to enforce and risk retaliation. They can also push like-minded countries closer together — and therefore further from US influence. There is a rift between academics and practitioners on secondary sanctions. Many experts think they are not an effective foreign policy tool, according to Forrer, an associate professor and director of the Institute for Corporate Responsibility at the George Washington University's School of Business. "Many researchers view secondary sanctions as having all the worst attributes of economic sanctions, plus the added onerousness of potentially instigating new conflicts with allies and adversaries who object to the imposition of restrictions and economic hardship on their own industries and citizens," argued Forrer. In the end, it is difficult to say what exactly makes a country change course with so many parallel variables to take into account. "Secondary sanctions should be considered an option when designing economic sanctions, but only under a very particular set of circumstances," concluded Forrer. "As with any economic sanction, if deployed incorrectly, they can do more harm than good." "Not to use secondary sanctions against third parties is a waste of a potentially useful tool," agreed Harned, but warned, "to expect them to be a silver bullet is a misguided mistake."
DW
11 hours ago
- DW
What are secondary sanctions and do they work? – DW – 08/14/2025
Will Donald Trump's threat to use secondary sanctions slow Russian aggression or dampen its economy? Some see them as a powerful deterrent, while others think they are impossible to effectively enforce. After Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the aggressor was hit with economic sanctions from the US, UK, European Union and others. These sanctions restricted domestic companies or individuals in how they trade and do business with Russia. The sanctions were an effort to make Russia change its course without resorting to direct military force. Since then, the sanctions have piled up. Russia's foreign assets have been frozen, and a majority of Russian banks have been cut off from the global banking system. To keep its economy going, Russia redirected trade to other countries like China, India, Turkey and the UAE. To move its oil around the world, the country turned to a fleet of "shadow tankers." To end this game of economic cat and mouse, and bring Russia to ceasefire talks, the US Senate is working to pass a bipartisan bill that threatens "secondary sanctions" on countries that still do business with Russia. Primary sanctions are placed on foreign countries or entities, but they restrict the behavior of the sanctioning country's own citizens and businesses by limiting or prohibiting them from engaging with the sanctioned parties. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Secondary sanctions go a step further and extend to third-party countries, companies or individuals that do business with sanctioned parties. Even though these third-party entities aren't directly bound by the sanctioning country's laws, they are pressured to comply or face consequences should they do business in the sanctioning country. "Secondary sanctions do not attempt to force foreign subsidiaries to follow a sanctioning country's policies," according to John F. Forrer in a paper published by the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "The sanctioning country restricts its own firms and/or citizens from having commercial dealings with designated firms or individuals." The proposed US legislation would enable 500% tariffs on goods from any country that buys or sells Russian oil, uranium, natural gas and petroleum or petrochemical products. The United States is the biggest proponent of secondary sanctions. Their power stems from the importance of the US dollar on a global level and from the fear of losing access to the US market or its financial system. Since a significant amount of cross-border trade is in dollars or passes through the US banking system, this gives the country great leverage. For many countries, keeping this access is more important than doing business with sanctioned regimes. "While secondary sanctions can 'work' as part of the larger package, the intent, timing and credibility of the threat are important," said Lena Surzhko Harned, associate director of the Public Policy Initiative at Penn State Behrend. They are an important tool with symbolic power. "However, like all threats, it loses its power if it is not perceived as credible or other loopholes are found," Harned told DW. The Obama administration used secondary sanctions to target banks and other companies doing business in Iran in a successful effort to get the country to negotiate about limiting its nuclear program. More recently, the US has used secondary sanctions on Chinese firms trading with or handling financial transactions with North Korea. The US also introduced secondary sanctions against entities doing business with Venezuela, especially in the oil and financial sectors, in an effort to isolate the Nicolas Maduro regime. This past April, President Donald Trump imposed secondary tariffs on countries that import Venezuelan oil. This month, Trump issued an executive order, levying an additional 25% tariff on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Sidestepping Congress the president has threatened further secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy. Not every country is a pushover when it comes to secondary sanctions, and some find creative loopholes to avoid much of their economic impact. They rely on alternative currencies, such as the Chinese yuan or cryptocurrencies. Businesses or countries subject to sanctions can barter or use intermediaries or shell companies to conclude deals. Secondary sanctions are difficult to enforce and risk retaliation. They can also push like-minded countries closer together — and therefore further from US influence. There is a rift between academics and practitioners on secondary sanctions. Many experts think they are not an effective foreign policy tool, according to Forrer, an associate professor and director of the Institute for Corporate Responsibility at the George Washington University's School of Business. "Many researchers view secondary sanctions as having all the worst attributes of economic sanctions, plus the added onerousness of potentially instigating new conflicts with allies and adversaries who object to the imposition of restrictions and economic hardship on their own industries and citizens," argued Forrer. In the end, it is difficult to say what exactly makes a country change course with so many parallel variables to take into account. "Secondary sanctions should be considered an option when designing economic sanctions, but only under a very particular set of circumstances," concluded Forrer. "As with any economic sanction, if deployed incorrectly, they can do more harm than good." "Not to use secondary sanctions against third parties is a waste of a potentially useful tool," agreed Harned, but warned, "to expect them to be a silver bullet is a misguided mistake."
Int'l Business Times
12 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Alaska: A Source Of Russian Imperial Nostalgia
Alaska, the US state that will host the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on Friday, is a source of imperial nostalgia and often less-than-serious territorial claims in Russia. The territory that Russia sold to the United States in 1867 is now a symbol of the entwined history of the countries, whose relations have been severely damaged since Russia launched its offensive in Ukraine in 2022. To some experts, the summit in Alaska evoked memories of the thaw between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. "It's a classically orchestrated summit, like in the era of detente," Russian political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov said on Telegram. "Its symbolic significance is the absence of intermediaries: the powers, so to speak, decide for themselves," he added, saying that China is "not close" to Alaska and that Europe is "as far away as possible". But beyond being a unique meeting place, Alaska also fuels Russian memories of the Tsarist empire, the historic predecessor of the Soviet Union. "For Russia, Alaska symbolises the peak of an expansion," Alexander Baunov, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, said on the centre's website. It was "when the Russian continental empire had, for the only time, succeeded in crossing an ocean like the European empires", Baunov said. A Russian colony since the 18th century, Alaska was eventually sold to the United States for $7.2 million in 1867 by Tsar Alexander II. The remote territory was economically very difficult for the Russians to exploit and at the time its sale was welcomed by the Imperial Court as the country was struggling economically. But the transaction later came to be seen as a regrettable bargain after what formerly was a fur trading hub turned out to house crucial natural resources: gold and oil. In recent years, the price at which Alaska was sold, considered by some to be ridiculously low, and the legal validity of the transaction have become regularly recurring debates in Russia. In July 2022, in the midst of patriotic fervour in Russia and as tensions soared between Moscow and Washington following the offensive against Ukraine, the Alaska issue resurfaced. The speaker of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, spoke of "lands to be returned", describing Alaska as a "disputed territory". Russia's authorities are apparently not interested in reclaiming it. In 2014, Vladimir Putin, asked by a pensioner about the possibility, replied: "My dear, why do you need Alaska?" adding the territory was "too cold". Still, the idea of reclaiming Alaska is an endless source of memes widely circulating on Russian social media. One of the most famous claims that "our soul" suffered from the loss of Alaska because "it's where our bears live". The recapture of Alaska is even mentioned in a 1990s hit by a rock band Putin likes, Lyube, with the lyrics: "Stop messing around, America... And give back our Alaskan lands." US President Donald Trump meets his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday AFP Some Russians mourn the loss of Alaska because 'it's where our bears live' AFP
