An online petition is reviving a familiar fight over bitcoin in Europe. The initiative questions whether the world’s largest cryptocurrency is an innovation worth keeping or an energy drain the climate can’t afford.

What’s happening?

A bilingual petition circulating in French and English is calling on leaders in France and across Europe to crack down on bitcoin, arguing that its electricity use is “unsustainable and irresponsible.”

It taps into a long-running tension around crypto, with financial potential on one side and environmental impact on the other.

The organizer cites estimates from the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, saying bitcoin mining consumes about 138 to 172 terawatt-hours a year, which is on par with a country such as Poland. It also argues that bitcoin’s “mining” model depends on vast computing resources and consumes much more energy than standard payment systems.

“We should therefore consider banning the use and possession of Bitcoin,” the petition says, while adding that blockchain technology itself could still have value even if “a tool that is too energy-hungry and low-performing” is phased out.

The petition calls for banning both the use and possession of bitcoin in Europe. It casts the issue not just as a financial matter, but as a climate and resource management problem.

Why does it matter?

Bitcoin’s electricity use has been debated for years because the network runs on proof-of-work mining, a system that rewards computers for solving complex problems. Critics say that the setup can drive major electricity demand and, depending on the grid supplying it, significant planet-warming pollution.

Power-hungry industries can strain local grids, influence electricity prices, and complicate efforts to cut emissions. When new demand is met with fossil fuels rather than clean energy, communities can end up bearing the environmental costs.

More and more mining operations increasingly rely on renewable energy or excess power that might otherwise go unused, as it’s simply a smarter business decision to save on costs, and industry supporters argue that crypto can help finance new clean-energy projects in some regions.

Even so, critics counter that those potential benefits do not erase the broader question of whether bitcoin’s overall appetite for electricity is justified — especially in this interim period where nearly half of bitcoin’s power needs are still supplied by polluting fossil fuels, an overall total that can be higher or lower depending on the country.

What are people saying?

On Reddit, a thread about the petition posted in the r/climate community sparked a lively discussion. Many of the commenters wanted to redirect bans to what they deemed more damaging industries, including fossil fuels, fast fashion, data centers, and artificial intelligence.

“You mean ban fast fashion due to excessive energy use?” a user posed.

“You mean ban AI due to excessive energy use?” another offered.

A user asked: “If we start criminalizing things for their environmental impact, why not start for example from cars, oil, aviation, and weapons industries instead of Bitcoin?”

They explained their argument by saying, “not that I am against banning per se, but ‘the lower the fruit, the harsher the measure’ seems just socially counterproductive environmental thinking.”

Get TCD’s free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.