I think you're reading the situation completely wrong here. Yes, we should make energy cheaper, cleaner and more abundant. I don't think anyone with any real st

I think you're reading the situation completely wrong here. Yes, we should make energy cheaper, cleaner and more abundant. I don't think anyone with any real stake in the game is rallying against that fact. The issue most people have with Bitcoin is about it's value. It uses tremendous amounts of energy for what most people perceive as little to no tangible return, and the view is that we could use the same energy (and maintain the same "technological advancement" as you put it) for more valuable purposes; things essential to our survival both on an individual level (warmth/cooling, food, shelter) and as a species (accelerating our move to renewables, protected biodiversity, enabling simulations for improvements in medicine and the like). Your argument seems to be against a fictitious opponent, or one at the extreme end of the normal distribution. Very few if any are campaigning against only reducing energy usage. Most are campaigning for a redistribution of Bitcoins energy consumption, about 0.55% of global production, to accelerate our technological progress.