The very premise of this article ignores the very point of moving toward 100% clean power. If all power is clean, then why does it matter how much power Bitcoi

The very premise of this article ignores the very point of moving toward 100% clean power. If all power is clean, then why does it matter how much power Bitcoin uses? That is: Bitcoin's "dirty baggage" ain't Bitcoin's. Rather, the dirty baggage is that of electricity production as a whole, and that baggage gets a heck of a lot cleaner once we've moved away from carbon-emitting electricity production. Bitcoin doesn't give the slightest iota of a rat's behind whether a miner's running entirely off solar power or entirely off the dirtiest coal money can buy. Kinda disappointed in Reuters for putting their name on an article that is outright antithetical to factual reasoning. This is the precise opposite of good journalism; it's a hit piece, and for asinine reasons.