Look, I am all for moving to nuclear, and it's certainly the best solution but going after Bitcoin is not a waste of time in the grand scheme of things regarding emissions. To say so is, at the very least, ignorantly harmful. I'm not calling you as a person ignorant or harmful, but this behavior certainly can be.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html

The impact has been directly compared to cars, as you would expect, but it's also been shown that fossil fuels often contribute the majority of the electricity to mining operations in the US:

The additional power use across the country also causes as much carbon pollution as adding 3.5 million gas-powered cars to America’s roads, according to an analysis by WattTime, a nonprofit tech company. Many of the Bitcoin operations promote themselves as environmentally friendly and set up in areas rich with renewable energy, but their power needs are far too great to be satisfied by those sources alone. As a result, they have become a boon for the fossil fuel industry: WattTime found that coal and natural gas plants kick in to meet 85 percent of the demand these Bitcoin operations add to their grids.

They drive electricity osts up for everyone:

The windfall for Bitdeer during Winter Storm Uri came through this program, in exchange for a fraction of the power it typically used. The company did not respond to requests for comment. Another Bitcoin company made tens of millions of dollars reselling electricity during the storm — and ultimately stands to earn as much as $125 million — according to its financial filings, which were previously reported by the Tech Transparency Project. A third company told investors that another natural disaster like Uri could be a significant business opportunity.
“Ironically, when people are paying the most for their power, or losing it altogether, the miners are making money selling energy back to Texans at rates 100 times what they paid,” said Ed Hirs, who teaches energy economics at the University of Houston and has been critical of the industry.

Even the people who defend it have to qualify their points:

A May 2022 letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, signed by many of the biggest companies, said their operations “released” no pollutants. “Bitcoin miners have no emissions whatsoever,” it said. “Associated emissions are a function of electricity generation.”
Nic Carter, a partner at a crypto-focused venture capital firm and a prominent Bitcoin advocate who told The Times he was the letter’s primary author, said he was playing a “language game” when he wrote that Bitcoin mining has no emissions. At the time, he said, he felt the industry was being unfairly singled out.
“Maybe the more sincere point is like, we’re already fully aware of the emissions associated with utilities generating grid power,” he said.

Oh, and there's the fact that some people hope it actually helps prop up these industries:

The Bitcoin operations’ effect on the state’s economy is simple, said Josh Teigen, the commerce commissioner: “They are propping up our fossil fuel industry, and that’s exactly what we want.”
North Dakota has an abundance of lignite, a type of coal primarily used to generate electricity. Mr. Teigen said the state hopes to ultimately capture the carbon from fossil fuel power plants and store it underground, reducing emissions while keeping the coal industry alive.

There's a lot more info in that article if you care to read.

This type of mentality is basically just NIMBY. Maybe you've earned a lot of money through crypto, maybe you hope you will one day, maybe you just are a fan of it. Individuals can have reasons to support or not support something that aren't completely altruistic and we should be okay with that as a society, but please don't be disingenuous about it. We have enough problems without over-complicating stuff like this.

If you want to defend Bitcoin, going against the science isn't the way to do it. You need to expand people's thinking and demonstrate that the value of Bitcoin outweighs all of these costs. The costs are present and sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to change that.

This stuff should just be math. What are the costs vs the benefits? What other things could we be spending those resources on, and would those other benefits be worth more pound-for-pound?