There are a lot of arguments against Bitcoin, and the energy consumption argument has always struck me as the most asinine. It's an anchoring fallacy rooted in the fact that bitcoin's energy consumption is easy to estimate with a fair amount of confidence. However, because Bitcoin is easy and other industries are hard, we do not scrutinize the utility of any other industry in this way, though data suggests global video gaming is a comparable energy hog[1][2]. We have no way of estimating the energy consumption of the finance industry, and I wouldn't trust any attempt. Bitcoin is being compared to countries instead of other industries because it looks alarming, but many global industries that rely on energy look like this.<p>I hate pointing this out, because I get misconstrued as a Bitcoin supporter. I hold no Bitcoin, and I never have because of other principles. However, criticisms such as this one don't create constructive conversation, in my experience. Unless we want to start regulating what you can and cannot use energy for in your home, there's no point to thinking this way. The fossil fuel angle, in my mind, is simply a sign that we need to get off fossil fuels, Bitcoin or not.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electricity_consumption_and_energy_savings_potential_of_video_game_consoles_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electrici...</a> - US energy consumption by video game consoles in the US alone was 16 TWh in 2010<p>[2] <a href="https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electricity-than-25-power-plants-can-produce/" rel="nofollow">https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electrici...</a> - Globally, PC gaming (not console gaming) was estimated at 75 TWh in 2018