>Mr. Recny asked why an enterprise that required only a few people to run it should be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 500.

Why should an enterprise that requires only about 500 people to run it be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 2,000? and other such logic from "the only justified subsidy is my subsidy" camp.

>The concerns are part of a broader battle over the enormous carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining, which on a global scale uses as much energy as a medium-sized country.

>But the iconic American corporations that abandoned plants in Massena left behind the precious resource that drew them here in the first place: abundant, cheap electricity flowing from a dam in the St. Lawrence River.

So the source of the power a hydroelectric dam. That's about as low of GHG per kWh as you're going to get. "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas". If they ban these miners, like was done in some Canadian provinces, they'll potentially move to an area with higher GHG per kWh. Since mining is more location agnostic than other production services, it's natural that it be located in economically remote but low-GHG, power/energy rich locations.