For a long time I've been watching with dismay the rapid growth of Bitcoin's energy consumption. At some point it dawned on me that a global currency must be backed by a non-trivial share of world's energy consumption, simply as a signal of strength. For example, the US dollar is backed by the US military, which burns as much fuel as Peru or Portugal.

In practice Bitcoin's relative energy use may be too high, and perhaps we should discuss ways of bounding it to a reasonable amount. But we should not expect Bitcoin's energy use to be negligible.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/619155

and? few questions I have - how much energy is consumed from Christmas lights each year? Or idling home devices? (Phones,TVs, speakers, chargers, etc) we don’t talk about these numbers. -how much of btc’s energy consumption is “high commodity/demand” energy? Opposed to say energy from a remote hydro electricity plant that has a small or infrequent demand? - what price changes that dichotomy between unused vs used electricity?

we need to use less energy all around, and use the energy we produce more efficiently. the grid is use it or loose it. So what is btc’s real energy impact?

It's a fortunate thing that consumers of electricity pay for it individually. That way, it's not really a matter of public concern. Similar to how you don't have to worry about providing some justification for your habit of buying 4x as much mustard as your neighbor, or having 10x the number of vinyl records as the average for your state or whatever.