It is strange language to say 'carbon footprint is used' but I see no interpretation where the statement is correct. The 'carbon footprint' is actually 'used' t

It is strange language to say 'carbon footprint is used' but I see no interpretation where the statement is correct. The 'carbon footprint' is actually 'used' to secure the network, motivated by how the process generates more bitcoin. The size of the carbon footprint is not caused by, nor dependent on, that 90% of transaction volume. It doesn't make sense even when I try to find the most forgiving interpretation. There's an implication that the data means the transactions are enormously wasteful but it doesnt logically follow.