I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.
It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic.
But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic take is that "environmentalist" will undergo the same transformation as "abolitionist".
So no, we are not all 'ecologists', not in the same sense anyway. And not to the same degree.
[1](complete ecosystem collapse, widespread poisoning of populations worldwide, etc)
This is a really low bar for what it means to be an environmentalist.
The way I see it, your 'environmentalist' label generally applies to those who thing we should spend/sacrifice a lot. And the 'climate denier'/'anti-environmentalist' label applies to those at the opposite end of the spectrum who don't think we should sacrifice or spend anything.
Also re: slavery, more people are enslaved now in the world than at any point in history. More black men are enslaved by the prison system in the USA than there were at the height of North American slavery. So things are never so boolean.
People may agree in principle on what the end goal is, but disagree about the method to get there. Today the "environmentalist" is a political label like "liberal", "feminist" etc. It has a simple surface meaning but also comes with a lot of connotations and baggage, so that not everyone is comfortable pinning it on themselves.
Fiat currencies are backed in part by the power of the governments that issue them, so is defense spending a form of "proof of work" for them? If the US government disbanded its military would the USD hold any value for very long? Same goes for any other fiat... e.g. if the PRC disbanded the Chinese military would the Yuan retain much value?
If fiat currencies require a constant demonstration of credible military (and police) capability, that's a rather enormous cost and brings with it quite a bit of resource use and pollution.
(I would guesstimate that Bitcoin would still be less efficient than USD but that the margin would be smaller.)
If people were using Bitcoin as currency directly its value would remain equal to whatever people were willing to trade for it. Obviously if all people were willing to trade it for was USD it would become worthless, but that's not the point in this thread.
Bitcoin has other problems as a currency but that's not the topic of discussion here. Some other cryptocurrencies try to solve these, such as it being too deflationary or lacking functionality.
It's been clear for a long time that Bitcoin is not suited for small transactions.
The people currently employed by the financial industry would not cease to exist if the financial industry did not need as many employees, they would find jobs elsewhere. The downstream effects of what people spend their wages on isn't part of the the actual impact of the industry they work for.
(Both for the environment, and my wallet since I'm already deep in Eth)
And it's not really "free", because you'd instantly devalue the currency itself (and thus your own stake).