This is straight up bonkers. Yes: humanity's energy consumption is likely the cause of climate change. But the energy consumed goes into a lot of outputs: shelter, transportation, entertainment, commerce.
You could legitimately regard proof-of-work as an inefficiency whose cost keeps increasing. If proof-of-stake is sufficient, then it's remarkably inefficient. But it produces something useful.
Let's have some sense of perspective [1] about energy consumption before you put bitcoin or proof-of-work as the culprit for Earth's climate problems.
[1] https://www.otherlab.com/blog-posts/us-energy-flow-super-san...
> But it produces something useful.
That is debatable, but even if it does, it does it at a much higher energy cost than the preexisting alternatives.