That's not correct.
The effort put into any block, past and future, is (long-term adjusted) directly connected to the payout, since the effort is algorithmically self-adjusting. It follows, that the effort put into any current block is worth ~$300k, and therefore worth ~$300k of electricity.
If bitcoin is ever going to be valued less again, the necessary resources to sustain bitcoin will shrink accordingly.
Additionally, they automatically shrink, by design, in ~2024, ~2028 and ~2032.
> If bitcoin is ever going to be valued less again, the necessary resources to sustain bitcoin will shrink accordingly.
If I'm interpreting correctly, this will occur because the number of miners will decrease as the reward incentive decreases. Or do you mean something else?
This is 100% incorrect. Energy is spent mining Bitcoin, which has an adjustable difficulty to average mined blocks at rate of ~once per ten minutes. A basic home computer could easily mine all of the blocks if the difficulty was low enough (i.e. there were no other miners).
It's pointless to suggest hypotheticals that aren't even remotely applicable in the real world.
Nevertheless, this thread did raise some questions, particularly about scalability (ie. if each block has a max capacity and blocks are mined every ten minutes, how to account for an ever-increasing amount of transactions per time-period between blocks?). There appear to be some proposed solutions to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem
> A single transaction of bitcoin has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions or 51,210 hours of watching YouTube, according to the site.
And it will continue to increase. Common sense may suggest that, consequently, the seigniorage of BTC should naturally dip below zero. But then again who could've predicted its value would ever have exceeded $50K USD?