Several recent campaigns (notably “Change the Code, Not the Climate”) have spotlighted Bitcoin’s energy use, and crypto advocates have accused environmental NGOs of being “paid” to attack Bitcoin. However, evidence shows only one NGO – Greenpeace USA – accepted a major climate-focused donation linked to Bitcoin, while the Sierra Club itself received no such earmarked funding. In March 2022, Greenpeace USA and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) launched a public campaign calling for Bitcoin’s code to change from energy‐intensive proof‐of‐work to a low‐energy consensus. That effort was backed by a $5 million grant from Ripple co‑founder Chris Larsen (via his climate foundation) . (Larsen publicly confirmed he contributed $5 million, and Greenpeace/EWG officials called his foundation the “initial funder” of the campaign .) By contrast, the Sierra Club organization did not receive any known crypto‐industry funding for anti‑Bitcoin advocacy. In fact, Coindesk reports that while Earthjustice, Sierra Club and other groups signed a climate letter on Bitcoin mining, none of them participated in Larsen’s funded advertising campaign . The Sierra Club’s role has been limited to partnering on regulatory letters and reports about mining (see below), not in the code‑change advertising funded by Larsen.
Larsen’s donation was widely publicized by press outlets in 2022. For example, The Washington Post noted Larsen “contributed $5 million to launch” the campaign with Greenpeace and others . E&E News similarly reported the campaign’s “initial funding is from the foundation of Chris Larsen” . Larsen himself later clarified that Ripple (the company) did not directly fund the campaign – it was a personal, climate‑philanthropy initiative of his – but Greenpeace and partners were clear that his money paid for their ads to highlight Bitcoin’s carbon footprint . In sum, only Greenpeace (and allied EWG) took Larsen’s money for this campaign; Sierra Club did not.
Image: Fossil‐fuel power plant; Bitcoin mining often relies on such plants for electricity. Enormous server farms (“mines”) drive up energy use and emissions. (Photo: Coindesk) .
Public Messaging Over Time: Greenpeace vs. Sierra Club
Greenpeace USA
Greenpeace USA has consistently highlighted Bitcoin’s energy waste and pushed for change. In early 2022, Greenpeace co‑led the “Change the Code, Not the Climate” campaign . Its March 2022 press release decried that “Bitcoin’s growing greenhouse gas pollution” must be stopped by pushing miners to alter Bitcoin’s proof‐of‐work code . Greenpeace’s Chief Programs Officer Tefere Gebre said: “No matter how you feel about Bitcoin, pushing those with the power to ensure a code change will make our planet … safer from the destructive impacts of climate change. What we do have is a solution: Change the Code. Not the Climate.” . Greenpeace joined with local mining opponents to place ads (e.g. in the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Politico) calling out high‐profile Bitcoin advocates and urging code reform . The tone was unambiguously urgent and climate‑focused. (Greenpeace emphasized it was not anti‑cryptocurrency per se: its “Myth vs. Fact” page later insisted “We are not against cryptocurrency. We are against the destruction of our climate” .)
After Ethereum’s successful move to proof‑of‑stake, Greenpeace broadened its critique. In 2024, Greenpeace USA released a detailed report (“Mining for Power”) linking Bitcoin mining firms to fossil‑fuel and climate‑denier interests . The report reiterated that Bitcoin mining now emits as much CO₂ as some industrial countries and is mainly powered by coal, oil and gas . Greenpeace framed Bitcoin as propping up dirty power plants and “magnifying energy and climate justice harms in our communities” . It also noted a shift in emphasis: beyond calling for code change, Greenpeace now stresses regulatory action and public awareness of mining’s grid strain . (For example, Greenpeace has criticized recent U.S. approvals of Bitcoin ETFs, calling them a “loss for the climate” .)
Throughout, Greenpeace’s messaging remained that PoW Bitcoin is an environmental problem. It has published multiple analyses and campaigns (press releases, social media, reports) highlighting Bitcoin’s electricity use. Its tone stayed consistently critical of Bitcoin’s energy impact, even as it adjusted strategy from technical code fixes to broader legislative and activist campaigns. In each case Greenpeace cited climate science and recent research (e.g. Cambridge University data) to argue Bitcoin’s energy draw is alarming .
Sierra Club (and allied groups)
The Sierra Club as an organization has been far less publicly visible on Bitcoin than Greenpeace. Its former leader, Michael Brune (who stepped down as Sierra Club President in 2020), helped initiate the 2022 campaign as a private citizen and advisor. Sierra Club itself did not run ads or host the campaign – Brune worked with EWG/Greenpeace in his post-Sierra role . (A Sierra Club press contact confirmed the organization did not join the Larsen‑funded ads .)
However, Sierra Club has endorsed the overall climate concerns about crypto mining. In March 2023, Sierra Club joined Earthjustice to publish The Energy Bomb, a comprehensive guide on cryptocurrency mining’s environmental harms . In that press release, Sierra Club attorneys and partners warned that Bitcoin mining “relies on the dirtiest sources of energy” and accused the industry of a “relentless greenwashing campaign” . A Sierra Club advisor quoted said Bitcoin mining in the U.S. generated “three times more emissions than the nation’s largest coal plant” in a year . The focus here was on promoting strong regulation (moratoria, better permitting, utility controls) rather than on code changes. In practice, Sierra Club’s tone has been consistent: it views PoW mining as a harmful industry that should be curtailed, aligning with its broader climate advocacy.
In summary, Sierra Club’s public statements on Bitcoin mainly occurred in coalition with other climate groups. It never wavered in calling for crypto mining transparency and restrictions, but it never suggested it was paid or shifted tone to become favorable. The Sierra Club’s messaging remained framed as protecting communities and emissions goals (e.g. supporting New York’s cryptomining moratorium) – decidedly not a backtrack or pro‑Bitcoin stance.
Image: Greenpeace and allies at an environmental protest (2019). The organization’s recent Bitcoin campaigns have similarly used visual activism (e.g. “Skull of Satoshi” art) to dramatize cryptocurrency’s climate impact. (Photo: CCN) .
Campaign Context, Partnerships and PR
The most prominent campaign, “Change the Code, Not the Climate,” was a joint initiative of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Greenpeace USA, and a coalition of state/local clean-energy organizations. Launched in March 2022, it mobilized high-profile backers and media to pressure Bitcoin investors (like Jack Dorsey’s Block or Tesla) to call for code change . At its press conference and in ads, the group deployed creative tactics: for example, an 11‑foot “Skull of Satoshi” sculpture (by Greenpeace with artist Benjamin Von Wong) toured the U.S. to symbolize Bitcoin’s coal plants. Funders included Larsen’s donation plus smaller climate foundations and public donations – the campaign even set up a website (cleanupbitcoin.com) for supporters .
Importantly, key climate NGOs worked together: Greenpeace USA, EWG, Earthjustice and allied local groups all lent names and outreach. The Greenpeace/EWG press release listed speakers from multiple groups (Greenpeace, EWG, PennFuture, Kentucky Conservation, etc.) and explicitly named Michael Brune (ex‑Sierra Club) and Ripple’s Larsen on the panel . The Coindesk news article noted that, beyond the ad campaign, the coalition sent a policy letter to the White House calling for Bitcoin mining regulations . (That letter was signed by EWG and Greenpeace and also by Sierra Club, Earthjustice and others – but the latter groups did not join the Larsen-funded ad buy .)
In essence, the campaigns blended advocacy and media outreach. Greenpeace and partners took out full-page digital ads in outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Politico saying “Bitcoin: Proof that Money Isn’t Always Green” . They organized protests and art installations (e.g. Greenpeace activists overlaying crypto imagery on coal plant photos). According to analysts, these efforts were explicitly timed to influence policymakers and industry leaders (e.g. during U.S. regulatory reviews of crypto) . The result was extensive press coverage (from Bloomberg and the WP to crypto media) and heated online debate. Yet aside from this one campaign, neither Greenpeace nor Sierra Club had previously run large-scale Bitcoin‐specific PR, nor have they continued major advertising campaigns since 2022 – Greenpeace has focused on research reports and public education (like the 2024 “Mining for Power” report ).
Counterarguments and Controversies
Bitcoin advocates have fiercely contested these campaigns. The crypto community’s main argument is twofold: they claim climate NGOs misrepresent Bitcoin’s energy use and that the code-change demand is unrealistic or driven by rival interests. For example, researchers like Daniel Batten have publicly (via Twitter) labeled the Greenpeace reports as “misinformation” . They point to Cambridge University data showing a rising share of mining powered by renewables or flared gas, which they argue Greenpeace understates. Indeed, Larsen himself later tweeted that Bitcoin’s mining had “remarkable” growth in renewable energy use (as a follow-up to the campaign) .
Another common rebuttal is technical: critics note that switching Bitcoin from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake would fundamentally change its design. Coin Center’s Jerry Brito told The Washington Post that “proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are not interchangeable” and that a code change would require consensus from thousands of miners and node operators . In other words, critics say Greenpeace’s proposed solution is politically unachievable. Crypto proponents also argue that Bitcoin mining can help integrate renewables (by buying stranded hydro or flared gas) and that touting a PoW ban overlooks these benefits.
There is also suspicion of motives. The involvement of a Ripple executive fueled accusations that Greenpeace’s campaign was effectively a paid attack by a Bitcoin competitor. Indeed, some threads on social media branded Larsen “Judas” for backing a Bitcoin campaign . However, mainstream coverage notes that Larsen’s goals (and funding) were openly disclosed, and Ripple’s PR representatives stressed this was Larsen’s personal initiative, not Ripple Corp. . Greenpeace itself dismisses the idea of being anti-crypto or company-funded, stressing its independence. (In its myth‑vs‑fact FAQ, Greenpeace argues it is funded by ordinary donors, not by crypto firms, and that it supports efficient consensus models in principle .)
In summary, the claim that “Greenpeace and Sierra Club were paid to attack Bitcoin” is mostly misleading. It conflates two things: (a) Greenpeace’s acceptance of Larsen’s climate‑grant for a high‑profile ad campaign, and (b) the unfounded notion that Sierra Club was similarly “bought.” The truth is that only Greenpeace (with EWG) ran a funded anti‑Bitcoin media campaign, and it openly credited Larsen’s $5M grant . Sierra Club’s messaging on Bitcoin has been limited to collaborative reports and has not involved any disclosed crypto‑industry funding. Both NGOs have consistently framed Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mining as an environmental risk, albeit with different emphases: Greenpeace targets the code and public pressure, whereas Sierra Club (with Earthjustice) has focused on regulation and community impacts .
Sources: News reports and official releases from The Washington Post, E&E News (Politico), CoinDesk, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace USA, Earthjustice/Sierra Club, and other reputable outlets . These sources document the funding, partnerships, public statements and critiques surrounding the “Change the Code” campaign and related Bitcoin mining debates.