You’ve probably seen GreenpeaceUSA's Bitcoin report by now, and my response (if you haven't been blocked). 

Here’s six things that every environmentalist, Bitcoin advocate, regulator, policymaker and media representative should know about GreenpeaceUSA. 

I've had this information for over a year, but have held back on going public with it until now because there were initially signs that GreenpeaceUSA would be open to engaging with environmentalists within the Bitcoin community. 

With them now blocking me from commenting on their tweets, all hope of that has now ended. So here's what I can tell you about GreenpeaceUSA, and their campaign that have not been aired publicly until now, and which may surprise you. 

Firstly, some context: I’m a former volunteer environmental campaigner with Greenpeace. I once risked arrest to stand up for causes I believed in, including an anti-GMO campaign against McDonalds which was successful within 6 weeks, and hailed as an example of how creative direct action can yield fast results. One of the differences: we talked to McDonalds (something no one at GreenpeaceUSA is currently doing with the Bitcoin community). 

I know a number of people in the environmental movement, and I would like to thank them for their honesty in whistleblowing on a thoroughly misguided campaign from GreenpeaceUSA from start to finish. 

1. GreenpeaceUSA’s campaign does NOT have the backing of Greenpeace International. In fact, other branches have asked questions of GreenpeaceUSA’s tactics, and even said that their campaign is damaging the Greenpeace brand, and has resulted in the loss of subscriptions. 

2. Within GreenpeaceUSA, there are a growing number of voices of discontent. There is a growing division between some of the younger crypto-neutral or crypto-friendly millennial in their base, and the directorship of GreenpeaceUSA 

3. As we know, GreenpeaceUSA did receive a $5Million donation from Ripple’s chair Chris Larsen to run an anti-Bitcoin campaign. What you probably do not know is that within Greenpeace, several staff have questioned whether this is ethical, or in the spirit of an organization that says it relies only on grassroots funding in its sign-up pledge. 

4. Some members of EWG and SierraClub, particularly younger members, were not enamoured with their organization’s collusion with GreenpeaceUSA’s “Change the Code” campaign. EWG has not engaged in anti-Bitcoin rhetoric since 6 April ‘23. 

5. The head of GreenpeaceUSA’s “Change the Code” campaign has stepped down and is no longer any part of GreenpeaceUSA. At the time of his stepping down he was reported by a source within GreenpeaceUSA to be questioning the wisdom of the campaign. 

6. Within GreenpeaceUSA, we know from multiple inside sources that the Change the Code campaign has been widely acknowledged to have been “not particularly successful”. GreenpeaceUSA’s campaign got off on the wrong foot right from the start, by antagonising environmentalists within the Bitcoin community, such as me. Here’s its half-time report (TL;DR, the worst performing environmental campaign I’ve ever witnessed). https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/greenpeace-environment-attacks-help-bitcoin… Now, the campaign is in more disarray than ever, resorting to tenuous ad hominem attacks against Satoshi Action, based on the discover that one of their supporters is a climate denier. True. Well, guess what: one of their supporters is also a plant-based, tree-hugging, climate-activist & meditation teacher: me. That’s the beauty of Bitcoin: it pulls people in from across the political spectrum: we are as diverse as society itself, and that’s what makes us strong. As I wrote recently, “when the ship you’re standing on is sinking: it doesn’t matter if you’re on the left of right side of it.” 

I hoped GreenpeaceUSA would end their anti-Bitcoin campaign before their credibility and relevance to the new generation of millennials they are currently disenfranchising is completely severed. 

But it seems at the moment they are more intent on doubling down on misinformation. Their leadership must change for them to ever have hope of becoming a true voice for the environment again.