The discussion started in this thread shouldn't be about bitcoin's potential environmental impact, nor about debating the carbon footprint concept, which is admittedly controversial, or the accuracy of CBECI's methods. Rather, it's about addressing one of the main criticisms of bitcoin: its environmental damage.
I don't understand why the carbon footprint concept should not be debated when it is a foundation of your proposal.
I don't understand the difference between "potential environmental impact" and "environmental damage".
And by questioning the validity these criticisms of bitcoin, are we not addressing them?