I think you have a good point, and I don't have a solution. With respect to the article though, i feel like there are two possibilities (maybe more): (a) energ

I think you have a good point, and I don't have a solution. With respect to the article though, i feel like there are two possibilities (maybe more): (a) energy is "cheap" and we can only use it for "approved" things, ie we're not really buying it, or (b) it has a higher "sustainable" cost and we decide how much to buy based on the utility we see in it at that cost. As you say, it's hard to put a price on those costs (and even if we taxed it it introduces a whole other set of challenges - this is why in my original comment I said I don't like carbon taxes, but I didn't want to get into a side debate about that, it's a complex discussion). But some "externality" pricing is preferable to option (a) where some power specifies what we're allowed to to with energy. All told, it's not an easy problem that we can solve with something blunt like banning bitcoin mining. My personal view is that a technological solution is the only actually practical way forward and that's what we should be pursuing, but that's another discussion.