So even if PoW requires more energy it should still be the way to secure a network, and since bitcoin is using it and it will not be replaced then those politicians will fail at implementing something like that as the reality of the situation will never match with their expectations.
It is the reality that those politicians who will implement to ban pow or bitcoin, they'll just fail in the end. The network is making it secured through pow and those that like to impose it because "it consumes too much energy" don't really understand what it is all about.
There's an alternative to this problem if that's what they're addressing, there are alternative energy sources that have been done by huge mining farms if the main concern is all about the consumption and effect of it as it requires a huge amount of energy.
Correct, which is why something like this makes no sense at all, bitcoin mining already uses a great deal of energy which came from renewable sources so it was probably one of the cleanest industries in that aspect that we could find.
Governments know this so this is not something they can use to directly attack bitcoin or their lies would be exposed relatively quickly, so they are just arguing that the energy consumption of bitcoin and other POW coins is too high and something must be done about it, which obviously includes banning and other regulatory measures, which is what they were aiming for from the beginning.