You raise a good point, but sidestep a good conclusion I feel like. I can agree that it is surprisingly similar. However the root of the issue is that we need to speak in terms of environmental impact to get to Revenue.

I think the (implied) argument that the GP is making is such that Bitcoin is having too large of a cost to the value add to society.

I have no idea if this is true or not. I don't even know how we can quantify environmental damage relative to revenue.