I don't think analogies are helpful, but if murder were rampant while we narrowly focused on the murders of a single subset group, mainly due to visibility reasons because they've only started murdering recently, then I would have the same problem with that inconsistency.
To reverse out of the analogy, we've decided that the solution is to simply illegalize murder, and it generalizes over any group doing any kind of murdering.
But what is the equivalent for energy waste? Illegalizing energy waste, for example, isn't quite as open-and-shut as murder.
Imagine how hard it would be to actually etch out the details (operationally, ethically) of an energy policy that generalizes over waste in the crypto space but also any other place we waste energy for things we don't actually need.
> Imagine how hard it would be to actually etch out the details (operationally, ethically) of an energy policy that generalizes over waste in the crypto space but also any other place we waste energy for things we don't actually need.
Does the fact that this is hard somehow make the problem go away? Yes, it will be hard. Like many factors contributing to climate change, changes are required that will make people unhappy.
The only question is whether humanity will take the steps to change on their own, or if the Earth will make those decisions for us.
It's also not necessary to implement an all-encompassing policy about every possible form of energy waste to take aim at emerging trends that are a clear threat to the climate.
Taking just one example, unwinding the problems with the meat industry is going to be incredibly difficult because of hundreds of years of precedent and expectations of the population. In that regard, focusing on curbing new threats first while still in their early stages sounds a lot more viable and at least in the short term, valuable.
