I actually agree that the carbon-intensiveness of the power source is no more relevant for Bitcoin than it is for any other use of energy. We use energy to do things we think are valuable. All of us do. If the distribution of costs and benefits of using that energy is out-of-whack, then our focus should be on aligning them better. Carbon-intensive energy use in many ways does a bad job of aligning those costs and benefits, (though I think that case is generally overstated). So, at least some uses of energy produce value, and we should focus on making sure that those who derive that value also bear the cost.
The real issue with the article happens here: 'It should rather be: “Is it worth it?”. I answer this question with a clear: Hell no.' But it's anything but clear. The article treats it as an accepted truth that the benefit isn't proportional to the cost. It's not an accepted truth. Millions of people have determined that the value of what PoW blockchains do is worth using some energy to make it happen. Does the author derive a great deal of value from the Bitcoin blockchain? Clearly not. So don't use it. Just because one doesn't derive any benefit from a particular use of energy doesn't imply that nobody does or that nobody should. There are exajoules of energy used to do things that I derive 0 value from. I use energy in a manner that many would consider to be frivolous. There's no objective function to determine the utility of a particular use of energy. Should the costs be borne by the same people who derive the benefit? Absolutely. Should we treat as implicitly accepted that a particular use of energy is frivolous and should be stopped? Not if you care about your own ability to use energy to do things you think are valuable.
The real issue with the article happens here: 'It should rather be: “Is it worth it?”. I answer this question with a clear: Hell no.' But it's anything but clear. The article treats it as an accepted truth that the benefit isn't proportional to the cost. It's not an accepted truth. Millions of people have determined that the value of what PoW blockchains do is worth using some energy to make it happen. Does the author derive a great deal of value from the Bitcoin blockchain? Clearly not. So don't use it. Just because one doesn't derive any benefit from a particular use of energy doesn't imply that nobody does or that nobody should. There are exajoules of energy used to do things that I derive 0 value from. I use energy in a manner that many would consider to be frivolous. There's no objective function to determine the utility of a particular use of energy. Should the costs be borne by the same people who derive the benefit? Absolutely. Should we treat as implicitly accepted that a particular use of energy is frivolous and should be stopped? Not if you care about your own ability to use energy to do things you think are valuable.