I don't really use Ethereum, but I commend the devs for recognizing the problem years ago (before I was even aware of it) and taking steps to remedy the situation.
In the short-term, yes, it is incredibly wasteful (though recent changes have disincentivized mining somewhat, even with a bit of protest) and there are many other cryptocurrencies which are already proof of stake available. This year, hopefully, Ethereum will finally move to PoS.
Hybrid systems like Ethereum, bootstrapping with PoW and then switching to a PoS system afterwards seemingly solve this problem, but such a switch implies that the social structure around the blockchain is centralized: Ethereum is technologically decentralized, but politically very centralized (you can also see in their way of handling the DAO “hack”, violating the Ethereum protocol and rolling back the blockchain) and that's why the developers can just go “screw the miners and their hardware, we're moving to PoS now”.
You couldn't do this kind of switch for bitcoin, because it's really decentralized, with stakeholders having deeply unaligned interests.
Ethereum has many problems, which prevent it ever competing with bitcoin as money. It can do NFTs and games, sure. However, there are many competitors who do these better, like BSC and Solana, and other more centralized blockchains. So, in the end there is really no place for Ethereum to be competitive in.
These assertions that it is clean are not based on anything more than wishful thinking.
I like(d) everything else about bitcoin even though it's dated technology now, but proof of work is unjustifiable, the incentives create an extremely negative externality that aren't offset by its potential as borderless, uncensorable money. Especially when other blockchains avoid this issue entirely.
I just don’t agree that it can be dismissed as easily as the article does there, by saying that you can choose not to use it.
We only have one planet we share and other people’s choices are also important.
In a system centred around the premise that money is the only thing that motivates, for thing A to beat thing B, there has to be more money to be made from doing thing A. I don't think the case has been made here (though perhaps it has elsewhere) that PoS can beat PoW on these grounds -- are there sufficient incentives to make that shift?
I have the feeling that if you inject money in any cryptocurrency, you inject money in the "cypto market" which eventually mean that the price of PoW money also increase. And the energy usage follow the price of the PoW money.
The best way to push the energy usage of PoW money down is to get back fiat money under control and stop incentivizing reckless gambling, like the FED finally seems to be doing.
Eventually I think Bitcoin will lose out to PoS cryptocurrencies (probably Ethereum), and many people such as myself are specifically rallying behind this narrative, which is why we see bitcoin dominance at near historic lows, and I suspect it's unlikely to recover to >70% and perhaps not even >60%.