Energy consumption has nothing to do with increasing planet temperature, if Bitcoin consumed 10x the energy via solar panels, it would not have any environmental impact beyond the raw materials used in the panels.

You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you should be able to distinguish the difference.

> Energy consumption has nothing to do with increasing planet temperature,

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...

I'm arguing that China subsidizes coal[0], and that China does not utilize a carbon tax[1].

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.

[0]: https://www.iisd.org/gsi/faqs/china

[1]: https://www.carbontax.org/issues/what-about-china/