Ok, but then at best the argument is whataboutism -- it's ok to waste more energy because we already waste a lot?

The reality is that Bitcoin already objectively uses a lot of energy by design, and the problem will only get worse if its price goes up.

I don't want to try to argue in centimeter's place, since I'm not sure I agree with them, but the most charitable reading of their comment is not that they're trying to attack the status quo to distract from the energy usage of bitcoin.

They seem to be saying that traditional finance uses a lot of energy but we're mostly okay with that because we find financial products and services useful.

Bitcoin also uses a lot of energy, but it's only a "waste" if you think it's providing no value. Bitcoin is one of the few ways to buy "hard money" and if you value that the energy is not being wasted, it's being spent on provisioning a valuable service.