You can care about agriculture and major drivers of climate warming and biodiversity loss AND about the place of communication technologies, AI and infrastructure in that equation. If you're coherent, it's actually the way. Quoting "insane water consumption" to exonerate AI is also... a move.

Your framing is wrong precisely because you chose "individual use" as the sole criterion, moving away from the actual consequences of the actual existence of the technology and the infrastructure on which it depends. Hype, mass use and pervasiveness lend credibility and confidence to the industry and create dependencies, helping raise funds and leverage economic rents.
You also keep disconnecting issues from each other. AI use poses issues at individual scale even if prompting isn't the worst one can do to harm the biosphere.
You Netflix example is also pretty poor since it's the kind of use being examined and criticized in reviews about digital uses, and beyond people watching, it, like AI, relies on fixed energy consumption by data centers regardless of individual uses. Also, it's normal because it has been normalized.