I find this kind of argument bizarre - if something is valuable to humans they will use energy for it whether it's for transportation, watching the Kardashians or mining Bitcoin. Saying one application of energy is moral and another is amoral neglects that people essentially vote with their time and energy what to consume it on.
If an application that uses a lot of energy is very valuable to people than it's a competitive advantage to also service that need with cheap energy.
Having sound money is not at odds with the environment.
If an application that uses a lot of energy is very valuable to people than it's a competitive advantage to also service that need with cheap energy.
Having sound money is not at odds with the environment.