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.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Energy11 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