No, I do not have to ignore that. On the contrary, I like to write it down. Energy is a value and therefore stands for value. Many people do not seem to understand it yet. Power consumption ensures safety and independence. The price of electricity determines the possibility and degree of production, just like with other companies. It is an external independence. If it is unwanted somewhere, then it is due to policy and hence pricing. Not for mining itself. Bitcoin and most alts have built-in such a smart method that unlimited machines do not pay because of the difficulty. So electricity prices and local politics are a benchmark in where and how much mining there is. Like that a Tata Steel or Shell may or may not settle down somewhere. Bitcoin mining, on the other hand, is scalable, mobile, and shrunk as much as possible. It could even run on a Raspberry Pi in extreme cases if large mining farms were no longer able to handle it. And that may be the ultimate desired situation in the future, because maximum decentralization and minimum limitation of the electricity grid.
It is also strange to compare the power consumption of an asset with a country. We do not do this for other assets or product groups and only with Bitcoin. This is similar to deliberate framing. Digiconomist, on whom almost all media are dependent, is an employee of De Nederlandse Bank! Would these people have an interest in a fair presentation of energy / environment or an interest in preserving the euro? This person even admitted in a broadcast of BNR news radio, among other things, that data has been smartly visualized and that crucial data was deliberately not included. This is what I call dirty games. A comparison is fine, very desirable to me, but make it honest and informative. A Cambridge University also tries to do studies, but is less firm and more nuanced. Unfortunately, less sensational than a Digiconomist.
It also remains strange that no distinction is made between: how green it is, comparable to other current alternatives, whether it might enable sustainability (in terms of cost-effectiveness of peak profits), network stabilizing effect. It is never explained what the basic value of energy is, as I described above. And even in Holland there is sustainabilitys projects that can be started cost-effectively thanks to the use of Bitcoin mining, which would otherwise be impossible. Good luck with fiat or a PoS network that can not provide this value.
Moreover, the history of energy consumption also misses the point that very noticeable fiat money ensures mass consumption to keep the mountain of debt sustainable. In a reasonable comparison between currencies you should also include these kinds of consequences imo. Expensive and frugal money requires high quality products and less unnecessary production, less consumption, fewer raw materials and more recycling. It is likely that a euro and a dollar would then show a much higher consumption than a Bitcoin system. But such a DNB employee will not include all this in his reports. Too disadvantageous and is like sawing off your own chair legs.
Be aware that more and more people are seeing value in eg Bitcoin due to fundamental aspects compared to regular fiat systems. This also includes energy. For these people, consumption is worth it or even a preference. For these people, there is often no speculation but actual use of the system. It seems that we easily forget in Holland. Most people in the world have fared worse than the Dutch in terms of economic opportunities and sovereignty. So whether you want to use it yourself is your own choice, but I stick to this ideology. I am in favor of sustainability and stable networks. That was me before I started with crypto. I am therefore very nuanced in terms of mine consumption. It is not as black and white as the media shows us, as unfortunately often with other subjects.