The Bitcoin hum that is unsettling Trump's MAGA heartlands
According to the owners of the mine, Greenidge Generation, anywhere from 40 to 120 Bitcoin a month are being produced at the plant, along with some energy that flows back to the grid.
The company – which turned down requests for an interview – has argued that they converted a coal-burning operation into a relatively cleaner gas-fired power installation that complies with state environmental laws.
But amid public concern, New York state and Greenidge are currently engaged in a protracted legal battle over the plant's future. With some of the strictest environmental laws in the country, New York officials are challenging whether the gas-fired plant is permitted under the regulations that allowed the old coal plant. Power generation – and Bitcoin mining – has been allowed to continue during appeal proceedings.
Abi Buddington, who owns a house in Dresden and has been at the forefront of the fight against the crypto mine, says it has become a big issue locally.
"The climate changed, both environmentally as well as in our quiet little community," she says, recalling raised voices at contentious town hall meetings.
Ms Buddington is trying to change minds in Dresden and, through her network, elsewhere around the country.
"There are some who are environmentally concerned, and who may be Republican-leaning," she says. "What we've found nationally is even in red states, once elected officials are educated properly and know the harms, they are very opposed."
But not all are convinced. "They've been a good corporate neighbour," says Dresden's recently elected mayor, Brian Flynn, about the mine. "I'm pro-business, whether it be Greenidge or local agriculture… I think it's important to have a mix of both industry and recreation."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Twisted arms and late-night deals: how Trump's sweeping policy bill was passed
Just a few months ago, analysts predicted that Republicans in Congress – with their narrow majorities and fractured internal dynamics – would not be able to pass Donald Trump's landmark legislation. On Thursday, the president's commanding influence over his party was apparent once again: the bill passed just in time for Trump's Fourth of July deadline. But while the GOP may call the budget bill big and beautiful, the road to passing the final legislation has been particularly ugly. Arm-twisting from Trump and last-minute benefits targeting specific states cajoled holdouts, despite conservative misgivings over transformative cuts to Medicaid and the ballooning deficit. Here's the journey of the sprawling tax-and-spending bill. The initial version of the mega-bill passed by the House in May extended tax cuts from 2017. It also increased the debt limit by about $4tn, and added billions in spending on immigration enforcement while adding work requirements to Medicaid and requiring states to contribute more to Snap nutrition assistance. The Budget Lab at Yale estimated the House bill would add $2.4tn to the debt over the 2025-34 period. Several conservative Republicans balked at several aspects of the bill during long debate sessions. Mike Lawler, a congressman representing New York, wanted a larger Salt deduction – which concerns offsetting state and local taxes – while the California congressman David Valadao was concerned about the Medicaid cuts, which his district heavily relies on for healthcare. Then Trump traveled to Capitol Hill in late May to help assuage the holdouts. At his meeting with lawmakers, 'he was emphatic [that] we need to quit screwing around. That was the clear message. You all have tinkered enough – it is time to land the plane,' the South Dakota congressman Dusty Johnson told reporters. 'Ninety-eight per cent of that conference is ready to go. They were enthused. They were pumped up by the president, and I think with the holdouts, he did move them. I don't know that we are there yet, but that was a hugely impactful meeting.' In the end, there were only two House Republicans who voted against the bill: Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, both of whom are fiscal hawks concerned about the federal deficit. The bill moved on to the Senate. The Senate version of the budget bill passed on a 50-50 vote with JD Vance, the vice-president, breaking the tie. Until the final stages, however, all eyes were on the Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, both noted moderates, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, both noted fiscal conservatives. The bill's authors added tax provisions to benefit Alaska's whaling industry to win the support of Murkowski. They also tried to add provisions protecting rural hospitals from Medicaid cuts in 'non-contiguous states', but the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the amendments would violate restrictions on what the bill could contain without triggering the 60-vote filibuster. Murkowski acquiesced after winning new tax revenues from oil and gas drilling leases for Alaska, provisions protecting clean energy tax credits, and delays on Snap changes. 'Do I like this bill? No,' Murkowski said as she stared down an NBC reporter who had just relayed a comment by the Kentucky Republican Rand Paul describing her vote as 'a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country'. Other changes to the Senate bill were made in the final days of negotiations, including the striking of a 10-year federal ban on state regulation of AI. A record number of amendments were proposed. Tillis, who announced he would not run again in his politically competitive state, gave a rousing speech about the perils of Medicaid cuts and voted against the bill. Collins and Paul remained in opposition. With few other options, Democrats tried to delay the vote by requiring the entire bill to be read out loud on the floor the night before the vote. But in the end, with Murkowski's vote, the Senate had a tie, allowing Vance to cast the deciding vote. Given the total opposition of Democrats to the bill's passage, Republicans in the House could lose no more than three of their own to get the bill to the finish line. On Wednesday, the last push still felt dubious. Even the procedural vote that is required to move to an actual vote was delayed for hours, as some Republicans considering holding their vote. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told C-Span after voting against the bill in committee that he opposed the Senate version's inclusion of tax credits for renewable energy and its failure to restrict Chinese investment in American property. 'We have one chance, one moment to curb the spending that has plagued this country and will take this country down if we don't get it under control,' he said. 'What I see right now, I don't like.' Victoria Spartz of Indiana had withheld support over concerns about increases in the federal debt. 'I'll vote for the bill, since we need to make it happen for our economy & there are some good provisions in it. However, I will vote against the rule due to broken commitments by Speaker Johnson to his own members,' she wrote on X on Wednesday. 'I'm on Plan C now to deal with the looming fiscal catastrophe.' Spartz referred to a promise Johnson made to fiscal conservatives that he would not bring a budget bill to a vote if it increased the debt beyond a certain amount. Spartz said this bill exceeded the agreed-upon amount by about $500bn. Shortly before midnight there were five Republicans voting no on the procedural rule. But deals were still being made – executive orders promised and other negotiations done on the floor. Once again Trump stepped in, joining the speaker, Mike Johnson, in coaxing the party members to cast their final approval. The president called several House members and posted on his Truth Social account. 'What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' he wrote early on Thursday morning. Johnson held the vote open for seven hours, the longest vote recorded. And it worked. On Thursday morning, Norman voted yes to advance the bill. So did Andrew Clyde of Georgia, a notable second amendment rights activist in Congress, who failed in his push for an amendment to the bill to remove the registration requirement for firearms suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from the National Firearms Act, creating a path for legal civilian use without registration and paying a federal tax. The holdouts fell into line, and the House voted early on Thursday morning 219-213 in a procedural vote to move forward. There was still a way to go. Johnson had expected to open the vote at 8am. But the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, commandeered the dais for more than eight hours – setting a record previously held by the Republican Kevin McCarthy – in a marathon stemwinder of a speech attacking the perils of the legislation and delaying the vote. But Johnson remained confident after a night of promises and threats. Massie remained the face of conservative holdouts on the bill. He has faced withering personal attacks from Trump on social media, the creation of a Super Pac to fund a primary challenge and local advertisements attacking his stance on the bill. In the end it was only Massie and Brian Fitzpatrick, a congressman in Pennsylvania who voted for Kamala Harris last year, who voted against a bill that will now rewrite the American political landscape.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil says he has no regrets
NEW YORK, July 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's fight with elite American universities was only a few days old when federal immigration agents arrested the Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil at his Columbia University apartment building in New York in March. Over the more than three months he was held at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana, the Trump administration escalated its battle. It arrested other foreign pro-Palestinian students and revoked billions of dollars in research grants to Columbia, Harvard and other private schools whose campuses were roiled by the pro-Palestinian student protest movement, in which Khalil was a prominent figure. "I absolutely don't regret standing up against a genocide," Khalil, 30, said in an interview at his Manhattan apartment, less than two weeks after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered him released on bail while he challenges the effort to revoke his U.S. lawful permanent residency green card and deport him. "I don't regret standing up for what's right, which is opposing war, which is calling for the end of violence." He believes the government is trying to silence him, but has instead given him a bigger platform. Returning to New York after his release, Khalil was welcomed at the airport by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a political foe of Trump; supporters waved Palestinian flags as he reunited with his wife and infant son, whose birth he missed in jail. Two days later, he was the star of a rally on the steps of a cathedral near Columbia's Manhattan campus, castigating the university's leaders. Last week, he appeared before cheering crowds alongside Zohran Mamdani, the pro-Palestinian state lawmaker who won June's Democratic primary ahead of New York City's 2025 mayoral election. "I did not choose to be in this position: ICE did," Khalil said, referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who arrested him. "And this of course had a great impact on my life. I'm still, honestly, trying to contemplate my new reality." He missed his May graduation ceremony and emerged from jail unemployed. An international charity withdrew its offer of a job as a policy adviser, he said. The government could win its appeal and jail him again, so Khalil said his priority is spending as much time as possible with his son and wife, a dentist. Khalil was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria; his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, is a U.S. citizen and he became a U.S. lawful permanent resident last year. Moving to New York in 2022 as a graduate student, he became one of the main student negotiators between Columbia's administration and the protesters, who set up tent encampments on a campus lawn as they demanded that Columbia end investments of its $14 billion endowment in weapons makers and other companies supporting Israel's military. Khalil is not charged with any crime, but the U.S. government has invoked an obscure immigration statute to argue that Khalil and several other international pro-Palestinian students must be deported because their "otherwise lawful" speech could harm U.S. foreign policy interests. The federal judge overseeing the case has ruled that the Trump administration's main rationale for deporting Khalil is likely an unconstitutional violation of free-speech rights. The government is appealing. "This is not about 'free speech,'" Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, wrote in response to queries, "this is about individuals who don't have a right to be in the United States siding with Hamas terrorists and organizing group protests that made college campuses unsafe and harassed Jewish students." Khalil, in the interview, condemned antisemitism and called Jewish students an "integral part" of the protest movement. He said the government was using antisemitism as a pretext to reshape American higher education, which Trump, a Republican, has said is captured by anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies. The Trump administration has told Columbia and other universities that federal grant money, mostly for biomedical research, will not be restored unless the government has greater oversight of who they admit and hire and what they teach, calling for greater "intellectual diversity." Unlike Harvard, Columbia has not challenged the legality of the government's sudden grant revocations, and agreed to at least some of the Trump administration's demands to tighten rules around protests as a precondition of negotiations over resuming funding. Khalil called Columbia's response heartbreaking. "Columbia basically gave the institution to the Trump administration, let the administration intervene in every single detail on how higher education institutions should be run," he said. Columbia's administration has said preserving the university's academic autonomy is a "red line" as negotiations continue. Virginia Lam Abrams, a Columbia spokesperson, said university leaders "strongly dispute" Khalil's characterization. "Columbia University recognizes the right for students, including Mr. Khalil, to speak out on issues that they deeply believe in," she said in a statement. "But it is also critical for the University to uphold its rules and policies to ensure that every member of our community can participate in a campus community free from discrimination and harassment.' Khalil urged Columbia and other universities targeted by Trump to heed their students. "The students presented a clear plan on how this campus can follow human rights, can follow international law, can be inclusive to all students, where everyone feels equal regardless of where they stand on issues," he said. "They prefer to capitulate to political pressure rather than listening to the students."
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules
There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled. Announcing the publication of a landmark advisory opinion on climate change on Thursday, Nancy Hernández López, president of the inter-American court of human rights (IACHR), said climate change carries 'extraordinary risks' that are felt particularly keenly by people who are already vulnerable. In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate change. That includes taking 'urgent and effective' actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation. The inquiry was instigated by Colombia and Chile, which in 2023 asked what legal responsibilities states have to tackle climate change and to stop them breaching people's human rights. The Costa Rica-based court received hundreds of submissions and held a series of hearings last year in Barbados and the Brazilian cities of Brasília and Manaus. A wide variety of states and regional bodies, academics and civil society groups – as well as individual victims of climate change themselves – were allowed to participate. 'The evidence we have seen and received during the hearing and written submissions shows that there is no margin for indifference,' López said. 'Success depends on all of us.' The IACHR's founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the United States and Canada. The court affirmed the right to a healthy environment, and said for the first time that this includes the right to a stable climate. This means states have legal obligations to regulate emissions from both public and private organisations. The court says all businesses have a responsibility not to harm human rights but those that have emitted huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions in the past or present have a particular responsibility 'due to the risk created by their activities'. It singles out the exploration, extraction, transportation and processing of fossil fuels, cement manufacturing and agro-industry. States must set tougher requirements for such sectors, it says, suggesting changes to business operating conditions, taxation, contributions to just transition plans and strategies, investment in education, adaptation measures and addressing loss and damage. If companies do not comply, it suggests the polluting activities should stop and states consider demanding compensation for the harm caused to the climate. It adds that states should pass laws so that transnational corporations and conglomerates can be fully held to account for the emissions of their subsidiaries. States also have a duty to ensure a fair transition to a cleaner society, and must ensure that this does not in itself involve breaching human rights, for example, when mining for critical minerals needed for electric vehicles. 'This is not just about the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy,' said Marcella Ribeiro, a senior human rights and environment attorney for the Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Aida), an environmental law organisation that works in Latin America. 'This is an opportunity for a structural transformation that will correct historical inequality and protect people and ecosystems.' The IACHR also recognised the rights of nature and states have a duty to restore damage to ecosystems caused by climate change. Luisa Gómez, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the court made a 'critical connection' between the effects of the climate crisis on the rights of people and ecosystems, and how those responsible for guaranteeing those rights should react. 'It sends a clear message that impunity in climate matters can no longer be tolerated.' The inter-American court of human rights is the second of four top courts to publish an advisory opinion on climate change. The first court to publish its opinion, the international tribunal for the law of the sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them. The international court of justice held hearings on its own opinion last December and is expected to publish in the coming months. Meanwhile, the African court on human and people's rights has only just begun the process. These documents are technically non-binding but are considered authoritative because they summarise existing law. And they are expected to be used in future litigation and political negotiations. Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Centre for Justice and International Law, a human rights NGO which supported Colombia and Chile's request for the advisory opinion, said the new opinion gives a 'very rich roadmap' for responding to the climate emergency across society, including setting a series of standards for national climate strategies that could be very important for the forthcoming COP30 in Brazil.
