I partially agree. It's actually both questions, because... - We don't have a 100% renewable energy regime (and we are very far from it) - Even if we did it w

I partially agree. It's actually both questions, because... - We don't have a 100% renewable energy regime (and we are very far from it) - Even if we did it would be possible (and likely) for bad actors to arbitrage cheap energy for yet-more-harmful use cases - As we grow the portion of grid demand that is served by green, renewable energy, the price of coal and natural gas is being driven down - Until we have 100% deployment, one company's "green" energy consumption will simply drive the less-well-capitalized to cheaper, not-green energy sources Cheaper, more pervasive energy will be used efficiently in the ways that are enabled by our legal framework. If we aren't critical of those usages, there is nothing to say that abuses won't become exponentially more conspicuous even as we adopt more and more "clean" energy. And in fact, that's what we see happening in the world today. Look no further than: - Bitcoin mines exploiting cheap spot power and demand response policies, and burning natural gas directly from the well because the speculative price of crypto is more appealing than selling the same gas on the market - Generative AI in general, but especially when you see hundreds of thousands of GPUs deployed without so much as a business case (Stability AI, Inflection, probably many others surfacing in the weeks to come)