If it is all FUD all is good, would welcome if you could send me the data that proofs this statement wrong.
It would be fairer to consider Bitcoin as a currency and compare it to the next best alternative, which is the fiat system. Unfortunately, there really isn't any reliable estimations other than this[1] made about that but I would argue that they contribute far more carbon footprint as compared to Bitcoin mining, considering the numerous banking branches, offices, ATMs, etc.
I made the point that the energy consumption of bitcoin could be for good if it is driving development of renewable forward by giving them even more funding.
Renewable energy in many regions are cheaper than coal and for most parts, the cost of purchasing the electricity offsets the R&D of that as well.
Why not? That is exactly what I wanted to know, what is the rationale? Is everything bad? If there is an actually feasible alternative, what is bad about adopting it?
There is a PoS version of Bitcoin, which I'll argue is a shitcoin. I don't see a need for Bitcoin to change, personally. PoW is working as intended, hence the cries about its electrical consumption (which is arguably overblown by both Elon and the media). In general, Bitcoin has pretty much always adopted the mantra of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There really isn't any reason as of now (perhaps ever) for any shift to a different algorithm.
[1]
https://twitter.com/glxyresearch/status/1393166955864117248/photo/1