The CEO of Bitcoin did, in fact, speak up from his hidden fortress back in 2010 and delivered a pointed response to 2022's faux environmentalists.
In 2010 a user on the forum raised a criticism about the very high "energy waste" needed for Bitcoin mining. Satoshi responded — 
It's the same situation as gold and gold mining. The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay near the price of gold. Gold mining is a waste, but that waste is far less than the utility of having gold available as a medium of exchange. I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin. The utility of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of electricity used. Therefore, not having Bitcoin would be the net waste.
And Satoshi wound up persuading the original critic — 
After more careful study of the design of the Bitcoin network and trying to understand the exact manner in which Bitcoin attempts to create value from the computational work invested, I am now inclined to think that bitcoin is in fact high EFFICIENT rather than inefficient. My thinking now is that bitcoin does not, in fact "waste" computational work at all - instead it works hard to deliver the most value possible from that computational work. Something like a government issued fiat currency may not have any obvious energy burden beyond its printing - but in fact, maintaining the value of a fiat currency requires a substantial investment in maintaining police enforcement, a legal system, and national defense. In comparison to the energy cost of hiring police officers to enforce economic honesty, the energy costs of investing cpu cycles in guaranteeing that honesty mathematically seem very small.
Notice, Stacker News peeps, this little exchange is a microcosm of the argument we're about to have at an international level; the solution given is the same one we'll use, and which everyone will come to realize.
He was so many years ahead it's crazy
Makes you think how many people out there are already years ahead in other fields. Is there a biology student out there that already has a suspicion what research will find in 10 years? Is there a computer scientist that thinks about next gen algorithms? Is there an enigeer out there that already thinks about some crazy 2040s stuff out there?
reply
The only thing to be certain of is that AI will be solving more problems that we thought were decades/centuries away or even impossible.
reply
Nice find. It seems so straight forward, and elegant in its simplicity. Too bad the concept is so lost on 99% of the intelligentsia and we still have to defend it constantly.
reply
Think of all the trillions spent maintaining the largest Navy in history and intentionally keeping governments unstable and subject for nearly a century compared to the 11GW of mostly renewable and off-peak energy that bitcoin consumes.
reply
Very nice! Great find.
reply
Bitcoin could end up being carbon negative based on its use case as location agnostic energy demand and the ability to capture what may have been vented methane gas
reply
Great find. Satoshi’s argument is the right one: Bitcoin is more than worth it. This is far more effective than trying to appease governments and ESG people about the energy mix.
reply
If only all eco-critics could be persuaded like that user!
reply
Do you have a link? Nice find would love to read the whole exchange
Great read! I was lead here by an ad from Fountain, great reading material.
reply
I’d upvote if you remove all the caps
reply
reply
"It's the same situation as gold and gold mining. The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay near the price of gold."
Satoshi was right, it's no coincidence that it costs $20k worth of energy to mine a bitcoin.
reply
One thing I don't fully understand yet is the opinion that with Bitcoin, we'll not need police, a legal system, national defense, or a state overall.
I kind of feel like there's a lot of truth to that, but I can't explain it myself yet. Can someone point me in the right direction?
reply
I think we have to ask ourselves what fundamentally those institutions do, and why human civilization has them in the first place.
"It's to keep ourselves safe" — 
Great. But why are we in danger?
"Well, disputes happen. Contract disagreements. Thievery. Tempers rise" —
Okay. But WHY does that happen? What do contracts disagree about? What do thieves steal? What makes people so angry they resort to violence? Why do nations invade other countries and what's the incentive for doing so?
"It's all about resources" — if Bitcoin is the ultimate form of property, then the inability to confiscate it without the owner's consent fundamentally realigns the incentives that lead to, say, thievery, or conquest. You can't "conquer" a people and confiscate all their Bitcoin the way you used to be able to steal their livestock or oil.
That's the idea behind it, anyway.
Me personally, I don't know where I stand on it. I don't think anyone really does. It seems to me the incentive to hit someone with a bat and steal their property is diminishing, but the incentive to manipulate them into surrendering their property willingly is increasing.
reply
I mean Btc is wayy healthier than gold mining, fiat money or even the actual financial system (fossil fuel investments, banks, etc.). Electricity can be produced by renewable sources. Sun power is so big, we need to push it and put more investment into it and we definitely resolve all our energy and climate problems.
reply
я он логично пояснил.. все верно... это как ехать на электро мобиле заправленным бензином на всякий случай... и
reply
thanks for sharing this
reply
Very cool, thanks
reply