Those emissions are nothing. Its a drop in the bucket compared with other industrial uses. A 50% reduction would change nothing, reduction to 0 would change nothing.
And as an analogy it breaks down because we need to reduce/eliminate all sources of pollution, not just the current biggest one.
Edit: Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we should rate pollution sources by absolute amount or amount per actual utility produced. Gas-turbine-powered AI datacenters surely rate abysmally low on utility efficiency.
My point is that this is true of basically any since source of pollution.
You can argue about sequencing if you’d like, but every individual source must be dealt with.
And when it comes to the atmosphere and the cumulative effects of each tonne of CO2 has on the climate, it is better and cheaper to prevent adding new CO2 than it will be to remove it once it’s added.
They've got the conclusion (they want datacenters gone) and they are going searching for possible any reason.