Not to mention pow mining is not location or resource specific. It encourages cheap and efficient use of energy. Miners preffer low cost, surplus energy and will relocate wherever that may be. Pow can use nuclear, thermal, wind, solar and alsoo dirty fuels, just like a Tesla. If you have an issue with the use of dirty fuels, then campaign against that specifically, throwing pow under the bus entirely is short sighted.

Also what does btc and crypto replace? The carbon footprint of traditional finance, banking and the military actions to preserve it are massive polluters. Even at its infancy, pow crypto is already a good direction to improve sustainability.

While I think it's fair to properly account for the carbon footprint of traditional banking and state military infrastructure, it is an utter fantasy that crypto is in direct competition with them. Crypto has been steadily integrating with existing banking institutions and regulations over the last five years; and barring some kind of new free-market, secrets-based "killer drones as a service", no distributed hash table can supplant raw military hegemony (aka, the $5 wrench attack [0]).

I think crypto has a lot of socially useful potential, beyond mere speculative gambling and Austrian-school value storage, but that's in addition to the centuries of momentum in our real-world political economy; crypto-currencies are unlikely to replace that entirely, anymore than the internet replaced the New York Times.

[0] https://xkcd.com/538/

"small"

6 months can be a tipping point happening or not.

Additionally, each produced ton of green house gases is contributing to climate change right now

The more electricity to decarbonize the more difficult.

which scientific sources contradict the existence of tipping points?