In 2021, most transactions aren't made with paper cash and metal coins. It doesn't matter, though, because Bitcoin certainly isn't replacing traditional systems. The waste of Bitcoin is additive on top of any existing energy usage.
Recent estimates compare the energy cost of a single Bitcoin transaction to around 700,000 credit card transactions, all things considered. ( https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ )
Notably, traditional transactions only get more efficient as our datacenters become faster and more energy efficient.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin continues to consume ever-increasing amounts of energy while the number of supported transactions stays the same.
Right now Bitcoin is an additive to the financial system, and actually promotes more usage of fiat. So if you were to compare the manifold energy consumption to Bitcoin, you need to somewhere also calculate those other effects.
I can't find a reference, but there's a good phrase that talked about how for every new innovation that comes out and is going to "completely replace X", the actual equilibrium always turns into a hybrid of the legacy systems and the new systems. Much like we've seen with Bitcoin.
So at least at this point, I find your argument disingenuous, because it doesn't take into effect the interplay of the systems.
That still leaves us with bitcoin being an environmental disaster and a net loss for humanity, apart from the few people who are benefitting from the pyramid scheme right now; Thus, changing none of the arguments against it.
The cost of operating US dollars as a transactional concept is many, many, many orders of magnitude greater energy cost than Bitcoin.
There was a Dutch company I knew that was using a distributed protocol to combine data computation in people's homes and have the heat be an actual dependable byproduct. I hope they're doing well. Such a cool idea.