> What is the "correct" amount of energy for humans to spend on such a thing?
Perhaps the "correct" amount is less than what it would take to increase planet temperature by 4°C?
Perhaps the "correct" amount is less than what it would take to increase planet temperature by 4°C?
You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you should be able to distinguish the difference.
As long as we're using fossil fuels, planet temperature does in fact have something to do with energy consumption. You seem to be arguing that because renewable energy sources exists, Bitcoin has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions. However, that is false, as 8% of Bitcoin mining happens in Inner Mongolia, which is home to many of China's large coal mines[0].
[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bi...
So when you call for a ban of Bitcoin in the name in environmental concerns, you've decided to be the arbiter of energy usage, on what is productive and valuable, and what is not.
You're welcome to argue your points, but it would still be far more efficient and productive to addresses the actual core problem: coal fire plants, and energy prices.