Congratulations, you just used the energy of the whole country of Denmark with _everything_ in it (housholds, heavy industry, etc.) to process less than a 1/7th of Denmark's cash-less transactions with a _specific_ (albeit widely used) debit card.
You see, your argument is simply invalid. "Traditional" banking is more energy efficient by multiple orders of magnitude.
1: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-...
2: https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/Documents/2011... (page 125)
3: https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block
'Dankort' isn't global
Can I divide a Dankort into smaller Dankort units?
Can I send my friend a Dankort? Can she send a Dankort to me?
The argument I think we would probably agree on is some sort of revolution is happening, and there are consequences that will be forgotten once it ends. That i think people would agree on (setting aside if bitcoin is a revolution or a bubble).
What you are saying is "traffic accidents kill people", and then saying "so what - people die naturally every day!", and that's not OK.
A neutral headline would just talk about bitcoin energy consumption or whatever.
A better question is "what value does Bitcoin provide for the energy it uses compared to similar alternatives (Ethereum, Ripple...)?"