Today you probably consume more energy in a few days than your ancestors whole lives.
Now, we've created distributed, immutable property, something that has never existed before. It turns electricity into value storage. What is the "correct" amount of energy for humans to spend on such a thing?
Perhaps the "correct" amount is less than what it would take to increase planet temperature by 4°C?
You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you should be able to distinguish the difference.
As long as we're using fossil fuels, planet temperature does in fact have something to do with energy consumption. You seem to be arguing that because renewable energy sources exists, Bitcoin has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions. However, that is false, as 8% of Bitcoin mining happens in Inner Mongolia, which is home to many of China's large coal mines[0].
[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bi...
So when you call for a ban of Bitcoin in the name in environmental concerns, you've decided to be the arbiter of energy usage, on what is productive and valuable, and what is not.
You're welcome to argue your points, but it would still be far more efficient and productive to addresses the actual core problem: coal fire plants, and energy prices.
> a bunch of aircraft carriers and planes and bombs and people with big guns, which gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is a crime to forge dollars no matter who you are or where you live
Cryptocurrency offers all this and more for a fraction of the price.
It's good that Ethereum is moving to proof of stake. Not because of some environmental impact though. Mining is just really expensive, it results in huge fees making the coin almost unusable for normal people.
Even better, how much energy is wasted per page view due to inefficient frontend web frameworks?
Seems to me that code is speech, and restricting what one can and can't do with silicon that one owns is absolutely ridiculous.