With PoW energy usage is roughly proportional to the $ price of the asset regardless of the number of transactions it can process. A successful Bitcoin means higher and higher energy usage. Whereas anything else success means making it more efficient not less.

And every four years it will double in price, and right now it consumes 0.5% of all electricity, which means in 56 years it will consume 82% of all electricity, assuming we produce roughly the same electricity as today.

Is this your argument?

Not really. It is more immediate than that. Right now we heavily rely on CO2 emitting power generation. And if bitcoin becomes wildly successful, or simply gets into another bubble, while trying to combat climate change, and it stays on PoW that is an issue.

It consuming 0.5% is already such an absolutely huge red flag that I really can’t fathom any reason to continue with it.

Huge ships are multiple times more efficient than the equivalent transport would be on roads — so, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

We should obviously try to cut back on transports of such huge distances, but when necessary, ships are currently the best way even with all the pollution they do. Nonetheless, their current use is still incomparably more effectful on our lives and live quality than cryptos that it can’t be taken at face value.

Yes and no. Because of the pandemic, and now the invasion, we have realized the world has too many unnecessary imports which could be produced locally.

They were cheaper because all this contamination is called "externalities", which is a code word for "someone else's problem"; and because short term profit is king and responsibilities be damned. Also dumping, tariffs, dominant countries imposing free trade treaties on weaker countries, and so on.

They still have a huge cost. There are of course things that need to be transported these distances, and with or without oil these need to be moved, but also a considerable percent is cheap plastic stuff from China.