A correct version would be: I’ve been trying to convince people that power isn’t bad, even though some is generated with coal, because solar exists.
And that version makes sense.
Read that sentence like "As long as proof of stake exists, proof of work is a 'moot point' toward the environment."
They're making an analogy to the OP comment to argue that it's a bad excuse.
PoS is a nice concept but we don’t leave in that world yet. The author mentions that Etherium has been talking about switching to PoS but haven’t yet.
Anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 seconds has seen the issues with the switch. Most miners have the majority of their “holdings” not in Etherium but in compute power, because they sell Eth to cover the operating costs, expand computing power, and secure profits (and reduce volatility).
This means switching to PoS will probably cause a massive fork, with the biggest miners staying in the “old” branch (it’s the one they’ll dominate). This leaves the new branch with little compute power and less holders, which makes it very vulnerable, especially since all large holders would rather prefer the new where they’ll get rewards.
What will really determine the successful chain, is where the stable coins go.
Anyone bringing up the energy argument lacks any other good arguments.
Moot point. Some are already proof of Stake and ethereum will be switched to PoS.
Might as well say storing your photos on the internet is bad for the environment and doesn't provide any benefits.
There a plenty of reasons why NFTs can be bad but this ain't one that applies across the board.