You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?
For starters, why focus on the plant being built when it has been permitted. If you focused on the permitting process presumably you could prevent many instances simultaneously.
Edit: https://cleanview.co/reports/behind-the-meter-data-centers
Texas is just ripping through these things since it’s so permissive. That’s troubling for the other states who will all inevitably bear some burden.
Because without context you have no idea what that actually means.
If you get attacked by an unknown number of duck sized horses, how much of an effect would defeating the largest of them have?
How much is the plant actually going to emit? Is the number the largest because the field is dominated by many many smaller things that cumulatively sum to a figure so large that if any one value (even if the largest) is removed, it makes no meaningful difference.
What happens to the fuel if they don't use it? Does it get used by someone else who would otherwise had used renewables.
I don't think it is unreasonable to have the relevant information to hand before making a decision. I might make the same decision as you have already done. I'd just like it to be based on actual information that I have.
For every person asking a company to do the right thing there seems to be a dozen who will say there's no point and how dare you even talk to them.
I don't think that represents the majority of people. I think, in general, people see the toxicity of the debate and decide to just keep their heads down.
Couldn't you just say this about all the others too, then why do anything at all? If you wanted to actually reduce pollution, doesn't it make sense that everyone focuses on a few first, then hopefully maybe the rest could fall in line?