The energy use is of captured energy that would be lost in transport to other energy users, because it uses just as much energy or more to transport it.
This means that “renewable energy more than the output of Argentina was always being wasted for over a century every day because it was uneconomical to transport it”
Crypto mining has been unique in that it only needs power and housing to stay dry, low infrastructure, and doesn't need very good internet, compared to other large computational projects, or any other sector.
Okay, so we got the “ah it uses a lot of energy!” argument over to “ah okay its a relatively green sector compared to literally everything else but I don't respect the use in favor of literally everything else and this must be taking away from that” which is also not true so I’m curious how the goal post moves after this - assuming you are able to corroborate what I’ve told you at face value.
It would be more productive to advocate for specific sites to not raise prices for others if they did, or specific sites to use cleaner energy sources. I can understand how that could cause some consternation if your whole cause is not liking crypto mining at all. But it is important to remain vigilante on how these mining operations run, as it is possible for nation states to operate these uneconomically and actually do things that you imagine is happening now.
(Renewable and captured are not synonymous but usually its the same)