Theres so much FUD gong around about energy consumption of PoW coins (namely BTC) and their carbon footprints and whatnot but people dont seem to be appreciating the fact they are two different things...
Energy consumption = energy consumed
Carbon footprint = emissions produced by products (including energy source emissions)
We can all agree proof of work is energy intensive, that is absolutely undeniable. Its carbon footprint however is dependent on the energy source itself.
BTC is as green as the electricity source powering miners, and the electricity source is as green as the infrastructure allows. If a countries infrastructure doesnt support wind turbines or solar panels, thats a failure of the country, not of bitcoin.
I can appreciate criticising the energy consumption of PoW (and by extension, BTC) but to criticise the energy source is ridiculous as it isnt something BTC can be selective about. It consumes what ever energy the countries grid is powered by. An electric car powered by electric from coal is not much greener than a diesel vehicle, unless infrastructure improves and renewable energy becomes dominant, the PoW/PoS argument just wont matter.
If it did matter that much to you, you'd advocate for greener energy regulations, not spread FUD on PoW coins. Even when PoW shifts to PoS, the rest of the world is still consuming 'dirty' energy unless energy sources go green. I'd prefer a change on a society wide scale than a mere crypto level change. Let us not pin societies failures on cryptocurrency.
TDLR: energy consumption is different to carbon footprint, crypto is as green as its infrastructure, PoW to PoS changes dont matter if energy sources arent changing and emissions staying the same.