A Bitcoin transaction doesn't consume much energy, only the block generation does. An empty Bitcoin block still consumes the same amount of energy. Which in the end makes it even worse.
this calculation ignores layer-2 transactions which are just a few TCP packets
People decide that democratically. This is just like how California bans all showerheads that gives you more than a trickle of water, since they see good showers as a waste of water (All of USA has a similar ban but less restrictive). Just that in Sweden they ban wasteful businesses rather than "wasteful" quality of life improvements.
And like many other "democratic" decisions, it's just a feel-good measure. Watering your lawn is apparently a worthwhile use of resources, according to the Demos.
California bans the sale, not the use. Discrimination of how we use power is like discrimination of how we use internet service.
What happened to power network neutrality?
Well every time I visit California the showers are horrible in the hotels, so I bet hotels has to have those shitty showerheads. It would work the same here, you ban crypto mining for businesses but people will still mine privately since you can't really ban that.
Like any other waste, when it does more bad than good.