Both processes involve doing work by consuming energy. In one case, the work is moving heat, and in the other case, the work is producing heat. The term "waste" is pretty meaningless in this context; what you really have is the question "how much energy does this process consume?" The answer to that question won't change depending on how you label the products.
You have yet to advance an argument that a space heater produces more heat than an air conditioner does! In general, that is the case, but that's an artifact of the temperature range that people find comfortable (combined with the temperature range of climates where people live). It has absolutely nothing to do with whether their machines are in a state of metaphysical grace.
Imagine that people enjoy a temperature between 60 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and some people live in a wintery area where the outside environment is -20 degrees, while others live in a sweltering area where the outside environment is 105 degrees. The Arizonan chilling his house down to 70 is maintaining a temperature differential of 35 degrees between the house and the outdoors. The Michigander heating his house to 60 is maintaining a differential of 80 degrees. That much larger differential means much more work needs to be done to maintain it, and the Michigander will consume more energy and produce more heat in the process of keeping his house comfortable.
If the climates were the same and the human temperature target were 10 to 20 degrees, then the Arizonan would be trying to chill his house by 85 degrees, while the Michigander would be heating his by a modest 30. The Arizonan's air conditioner would still be producing "useful work" in the form of moved heat, and "waste heat" in the form of emitted heat, and the amount of emitted heat would be large because a very large amount of work is being done. The Michigander's heater would still be producing "useful work" in the form of emitted heat (or as you call it, "waste heat"), and the amount of emitted heat would be low, compared to the air conditioner, because the Michigander is willing to stay much closer to the environmental temperature than the Arizonan is.
Yet again, labeling the heat "waste" has no implications for how much of it there is.
Both processes involve doing work by consuming energy. In one case, the work is moving heat, and in the other case, the work is producing heat. The term "waste" is pretty meaningless in this context; what you really have is the question "how much energy does this process consume?" The answer to that question won't change depending on how you label the products.