True, but similarly just because the number is big in an absolute sense also doesn't mean it is actually a worthwhile target for reducing emissions. There are plenty of lower-hanging fruit.

It's 0.05% of energy that could be used elsewhere to reduce emissions (since a lot of miners sit on renewable energy). It's a worthwhile target because it#s easy to fix: don't waste energy like that.

edit: additionally a lot of small crap is still a pile or crap at the end of the day, the small little energy wasters (comparatively) still make up a combined total that is wortwhile to take on.

That isn't an easy fix though, unless you can find some other way to replace the unique advantages that Bitcoin is providing to users.

This is like saying "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive!"

The fix is to use alternative consensus mechanisms like PoS. It's not "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive" it's "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Use more efficient types of engines such as electric or sterling motors".

I can agree with you that PoS is the most promising fix, but even still I don't think it's an easy fix just because the technology exists.

For example electric engines are an easy fix technically, but there are still lots of political and practical barriers that need to be solved before they can achieve widespread adoption.

It will take time for the market to build the same level of trust in PoS systems that they have in PoW systems.