Bitcoin began as an idea shared by a small group of technology enthusiasts. In the last ten years, it has become a global digital asset. It draws interest from big investment firms, governments, and regular people.
Today, Bitcoin is not just a digital currency used for online payments. It is also seen as a new type of asset, similar to gold or stocks, that people can invest in. However, this transformation has come with significant challenges, particularly regarding energy use and environmental impact. As the Bitcoin mining industry matures, the focus is shifting toward more sustainable practices.
The Digital Pickaxe: How Bitcoin Mining Actually Works
In 2024, a major event for Bitcoin took place. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This decision made it much easier for regular investors and big institutions to buy and sell Bitcoin.
More companies and financial firms now offer Bitcoin to their clients. So, the digital asset is becoming more accepted in mainstream finance. Here’s how its market value compares with other cryptoassets and traditional assets.
Bitcoin depends on a process called “mining” to keep its network secure and to create new coins. Mining is done by powerful computers that solve complex math problems. When a computer solves a problem, it adds a new “block” to the Bitcoin blockchain. The miner then gets new bitcoins and transaction fees as a reward.
This process is called “Proof-of-Work.” It is designed to make sure that no one can cheat the system or take over the network. The more computers, or “hashrate,” that are working to mine Bitcoin, the more secure the network becomes.
Mining has changed a lot since Bitcoin started. At first, anyone with a home computer could mine Bitcoin. Now, most mining is done by large companies using special machines called ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits). These companies often have mining farms with thousands of machines running day and night.
The Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report states that a recent survey covered 49 mining companies. These companies control almost half of the total computing power for Bitcoin mining. These companies operate in 16 countries. The United States is now the biggest mining hub, accounting for over 75% of mining activity.
The Energy Debate: Powering Bitcoin
One of the biggest debates about Bitcoin is how much energy it uses. Bitcoin mining is a high-energy process. Because mining requires so much computing power, it also needs a lot of electricity. Some people worry this might hurt the environment. This is a concern, especially if the electricity comes from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.
The Cambridge report estimates that Bitcoin mining uses about 138 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity each year. This is similar to the annual electricity use of a country like Sweden.
- The mining activity also produces about 39.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. However, this share of global emissions remained under 0.1%.
However, the report also shows that the energy mix for Bitcoin mining is changing. More than half (52.4%) of the electricity used by miners now comes from sustainable sources. This includes hydropower (23.4%), wind (15.4%), nuclear (9.8%), and solar (3.2%). Still, natural gas remains the single largest energy source at 38.2%, followed by coal (8.9%).
Many mining companies are trying to use more renewable energy and to find ways to reduce their environmental impact. Some are even using energy that would otherwise be wasted, such as gas flaring from oil fields. These efforts are important as the industry faces growing pressure to be more environmentally friendly.
Meanwhile, the survey shows a possible scenario when miners want to offset the emissions of their activities by buying carbon credits. The chart below compares the cost of removing Bitcoin’s carbon emissions using two methods: nature-based solutions like planting trees, and high-tech solutions like direct air capture (DAC).
Nature-based methods cost about $5 to $9 per ton of CO2, while DAC costs much more—between $134 and $344 per ton. Lower emissions mean lower total costs, and higher emissions mean higher total costs for offsetting.
Wall Street Meets Blockchain: Institutions Dive In
Bitcoin’s price has seen big changes in recent years. In early 2025, Bitcoin reached a new high of about $109,000 before dropping to around $74,000 in April. By May, it had recovered to about $95,000. These price swings show how quickly the market can change.
However, the broader market trend shows growing maturity:
- Institutional adoption is rising. Major firms—including BlackRock, Fidelity, and MicroStrategy—have invested directly in Bitcoin or launched crypto-related products.
- Spot Bitcoin ETFs approved in early 2024 have brought mainstream exposure, unlocking billions in capital inflows.
- Bitcoin’s market cap briefly surpassed $1.5 trillion in early 2025, signaling continued investor interest even amid macroeconomic uncertainty.
RELATED: BlackRock Bets on Abu Dhabi for Strategic Growth. Is Crypto Part of the Plan?
Experts have different predictions for where Bitcoin’s price will go next. Some believe it could reach $150,000 or even $200,000 by the end of 2025, especially as more institutional investors enter the market.
The approval of Bitcoin ETFs has made it easier for large funds and retirement accounts to invest in Bitcoin. Even a small investment from these big players could have a big impact on Bitcoin’s price.
The growing interest from companies is also important. Some businesses, like MicroStrategy, have bought large amounts of Bitcoin as a way to store value. This shows that Bitcoin is being used not just as a currency, but as a financial asset.
These trends point to Bitcoin’s growing acceptance as both a store of value and a portfolio diversifier. This financial legitimacy is helping drive the push toward more sustainable and compliant mining practices. And one name stands out in this direction – American Bitcoin Corp.
Stars, Stripes, and Satoshis: The Rise of American Bitcoin
American Bitcoin Corp. is a majority-owned subsidiary of Hut 8 Corp., one of North America’s leading digital asset mining companies. In early 2025, Hut 8 teamed up with American Data Centers to launch American Bitcoin. This partnership includes investors Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. American Bitcoin will focus on large-scale Bitcoin mining and creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve.
Hut 8 serves as American Bitcoin’s exclusive infrastructure and operations partner. American Bitcoin uses Hut 8’s strong data center skills, energy setup, and large-scale operations. They do this through long-term business agreements.
Hut 8’s CEO, Asher Genoot, highlights that separating American Bitcoin helps it raise growth capital on its own. This move also keeps Hut 8 shareholders connected to Bitcoin’s potential gains.
Just recently, American Bitcoin announced a merger with Gryphon Digital Mining. This stock-for-stock deal will take them public. They plan to trade on Nasdaq with the ticker symbol “ABTC.” This move aims to scale American Bitcoin as a low-cost Bitcoin accumulation vehicle, unlocking new capital to expand mining capacity and Bitcoin holdings.
The combined company will be led by a board including Hut 8 CEO Asher Genoot and other key executives such as Mike Ho and Eric Trump. American Bitcoin aims to be the largest and most efficient Bitcoin miner globally. They plan to achieve over 50 exahashes per second (EH/s) of mining power. Their goal is also to maintain an average fleet efficiency below 15 joules per terahash (J/TH).
By combining Hut 8’s operational excellence and infrastructure with strategic capital and market access, American Bitcoin is positioned to lead the U.S. Bitcoin mining industry and build a robust Bitcoin reserve for long-term growth.
Hurdles on the Hashrate Highway
Bitcoin’s future hinges on overcoming several key challenges. Regulatory uncertainty is a big problem. Governments have different rules for digital assets, which makes it hard for mining companies to plan for the long term.
Energy costs are a big concern. Mining only makes money when Bitcoin’s price is higher than electricity and equipment costs. If energy prices keep rising, miners might lose and shut down.
Additionally, as more miners join, mining becomes harder and requires continuous equipment upgrades to remain competitive. Environmental impact remains a concern, but innovations like AI are improving efficiency.
Despite these challenges, Bitcoin mining continues to evolve, with new technologies emerging to enhance sustainability and possibly even support power grids. The balance between growth and these hurdles will shape Bitcoin’s future in the global economy.
- READ MORE: The Energy Debate: How Bitcoin Mining, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrency Shape Our Carbon Future
The post Bitcoin’s New Gold Rush: ETFs, Energy Battles and the Rise of American Bitcoin appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits