You're assuming that the proponents of this argument are convinced that crypto is a worthwhile burn of energy in the first place, which is - off course - exactly the opposite of what's being implied.
Here's how your opponents see this exchange :
>> Instead of talking about <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of-the-Amazon-rainforest-lit-on-fire. I'm 100% serious.
> I am so annoyed by this argument. The question we should be asking ourselves is how <<<Gasoline>>> is being generated in the first place. Fighting <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> is the wrong fight for environmentalists: the right fight is transitioning to healthier and cleaner source of <<<Gasoline>>> in a world that will inevitably consume more and more <<<Petroleum>>> as part of our organic progress, with or without <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>>.
I replaced some words (marked by <<<.>>>) to make an analogy that will stand out to you and let you see how the other side uses the argument: they're not implying that enviromental disasters can be totally averted by banning crypto, they're simply stating that crypto is such a monumental waste of energy, the equivalent of burning skyscrapers for fun, that banning it will deprieve us of nothing valuable while saving up valuable time in our _continued_ fight for the enviroment. If you're stuck in the desert with limited water, you search for more water *and* punish those who waste existing water. The more extravagant the waste and far away the alternative sources, the more you should divide your attention between finding new sources and punishing those who waste.
I'm personally moderately on the anti-crypto side (just barely, and very reluctantly) in this, distributed trustless blockchains is a A)Theoretically beautiful B)But extremly, hugely, unimaginably inefficient-in-practice idea that only kinda sorta work when you use it for what plain old bitcoin was used for in the early days and only under extreme circumstances (e.g. circumventing governoment censorship). It's like communism (ironic given the stereotypical libertarianism of it's proponents), it's beautiful that somebody thought of this as an alternative to what we currently do and it's fascinating to imagine what we can do with it. But it's just not ready, maybe a better humanity in a better time and place could make it work, but not here and not now. Rushing not-ready things into production then "fixing it later" is how you do hacky scripts and shitty CRUD apps, not economic and financial systems.
The reason I also hate anti-crypto discourse is the extreme religiousness (almost of the same caliber as the fanatically pro-crypto side) that people treat this matter with, no amount of anger and insults will make reasonable pro-crypto people see the error of their ways, and unreasonable folks will not listen to the fiery screeds in the first place, so all this screaming going back and forth is for nothing.
Here's how your opponents see this exchange :
>> Instead of talking about <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of-the-Amazon-rainforest-lit-on-fire. I'm 100% serious.
> I am so annoyed by this argument. The question we should be asking ourselves is how <<<Gasoline>>> is being generated in the first place. Fighting <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> is the wrong fight for environmentalists: the right fight is transitioning to healthier and cleaner source of <<<Gasoline>>> in a world that will inevitably consume more and more <<<Petroleum>>> as part of our organic progress, with or without <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>>.
I replaced some words (marked by <<<.>>>) to make an analogy that will stand out to you and let you see how the other side uses the argument: they're not implying that enviromental disasters can be totally averted by banning crypto, they're simply stating that crypto is such a monumental waste of energy, the equivalent of burning skyscrapers for fun, that banning it will deprieve us of nothing valuable while saving up valuable time in our _continued_ fight for the enviroment. If you're stuck in the desert with limited water, you search for more water *and* punish those who waste existing water. The more extravagant the waste and far away the alternative sources, the more you should divide your attention between finding new sources and punishing those who waste.
I'm personally moderately on the anti-crypto side (just barely, and very reluctantly) in this, distributed trustless blockchains is a A)Theoretically beautiful B)But extremly, hugely, unimaginably inefficient-in-practice idea that only kinda sorta work when you use it for what plain old bitcoin was used for in the early days and only under extreme circumstances (e.g. circumventing governoment censorship). It's like communism (ironic given the stereotypical libertarianism of it's proponents), it's beautiful that somebody thought of this as an alternative to what we currently do and it's fascinating to imagine what we can do with it. But it's just not ready, maybe a better humanity in a better time and place could make it work, but not here and not now. Rushing not-ready things into production then "fixing it later" is how you do hacky scripts and shitty CRUD apps, not economic and financial systems.
The reason I also hate anti-crypto discourse is the extreme religiousness (almost of the same caliber as the fanatically pro-crypto side) that people treat this matter with, no amount of anger and insults will make reasonable pro-crypto people see the error of their ways, and unreasonable folks will not listen to the fiery screeds in the first place, so all this screaming going back and forth is for nothing.