Your answer does not refute one iota of the article. I wonder why you wrote it.

In particular, the argument that we shouldn't address the wastefulness issues with cryptocurrencies until we have dealt with the fossil fuel industry and meat is utterly ridiculous.

There are far, far, far too many environmental problems besetting the human race for us to attend to them one at a time. This is dealt with in the article, and it's written in bold.

Proof of work is grossly consumptive of the world's resources by design.

Proof of stake has yet to materialize after years of discussion. But by its nature, it would intrinsically empower the largest stakeholders, if it could be made to work at all.

It's a hoot when you attack the original writer for their poor understanding of something that does not yet exist and might never exist!

Cryptocurrencies are a way for the wealthy to avoid taxes, launder money, buy contraband, and generally steal from the rest of us. We've been told for over a decade that real applications were coming, but so far, it's only been crime. NFTs aren't an application - no new experiences are introduced into the world except that extremely rich people can pay money for literally nothing tangible, and not even "ownership" in any legal or practical sense.

The idea that rejecting cryptocurrencies is somehow attacking fellow artists is another irrational appear to the emotional. So far the work that's become NFTs is work that is deliberately worthless - work that would have no other value at all if it weren't an NFT - forgettable memes, a few seconds of someone playing basketball with no particularly features of interest, a work that was deliberately destroyed.

The idea is that the work is given artistic value because it is given financial value due to the NFT.. In my mind, this shows the artistic bankruptcy of the whole idea.

Overall, long on the abuse, short on the reasoning.