I am happy to concede that there are ways to spend energy that are neutral or negative, like, say, pervasive surveillance and limitless data retention. I think

I am happy to concede that there are ways to spend energy that are neutral or negative, like, say, pervasive surveillance and limitless data retention. I think the point that energy substitutes for labor is generally fair though. But honestly what I'm trying to state is that this characterization of environmentalists as worried about reducing energy use regardless of how much harm the source causes to be a straw man. The point is sustainability and the health of ourselves and natural systems. If energy caused zero issues to generate then I think environmentalists would be banging the direct atmospheric removal drums harder than anyone.