Maybe it isn't obvious, but even the most egregious excesses in our current economy produce material and economically advantageous (if far from optimal) outcomes: a jet flying from NYC to London physically moves a human being and their possessions between two continents.
It's not clear what bitcoin is providing, other that a self-sustaining speculative market. As such, even 0.1% of global emissions is particularly egregious.
> 1. A way to store value without it being stolen by governments.
I've never understood this. You're still living somewhere; the government can knock down your door and gently rubber hose[1] you into handing over your supposedly state-proof cryptocurrency. Indeed, there's probably a strong positive correlation between "legitimately afraid of the government taking my money" and "my government wouldn't bat an eye at torturing me to get my bitcoins." But for the average bitcoin user, it's more of a LARP than a reality.
I think there's ample real-world data against (2), and (3) is, well, the problem.
> the government can knock down your door and gently rubber hose
Yes, but that requires more effort than just saying "hey bank, freeze that guy's account" or saying "Hey central bank, just print money like there's no tomorrow"
> Indeed, there's probably a strong positive correlation between "legitimately afraid of the government taking my money" and "my government wouldn't bat an eye at torturing me to get my bitcoins."
I don't think the correlation is that strong. Government taking your money, or shenanigans like the Argentinian corralito (against 100% innocent people, mind you) can happen even in democratic countries, but it's stranger, and requires more resources for the government to torture you, including psychological torture.
It's not clear what bitcoin is providing, other that a self-sustaining speculative market. As such, even 0.1% of global emissions is particularly egregious.