Author here. I agree, me not liking it is not a great point. I think a stronger point would have been:
If you take the energy usage of anything you need to ask: "Does the positives of the thing justify this energy usage?". Let's say the current energy consumption of the Bitcoin network is X. You will find people saying "X is totally justified for the upsides the network brings" and you will find people that say no to that. But if you ask the yes people then: "What about 2X, 4X, 100X?" More and more yeses will switch to no. Of course you will find some people that will say "A power consumption of infinity is justified for the Bitcoin network and I rather have that than a car a house $other_thing_energy_consumption_thing" but I doubt this will the majority.
And this is the fundamental point tried to make. With rising Bitcoin prices the power consumption will cross every threshold without changing the positives that the network brings. I don't see a way to convert the people who say "it's NOT worth it" to "yes it is worth it" without affecting the Bitcoin price.
If you compare that to Christmas light there is a big difference. If you have people that say: "I don't like that Christmas lights use so much power" we can think of multiple solution to decrease the power usage without affecting the upsides proportionally: Can you compromise on using Christmas lights a week later in the year? Can you commit to slowly changing your existing lights to more power efficient ones? Can you use them for an hour less per day? And you can build incentives and legislation around that. I know that even in this space there are hard liners on both sides but I believe it is completely feasible to reduce the power consumption without affecting the upsides in the same way.