There is an argument to be made that the reason we don't have pervasive green energy is that a) we don't need (demand) enough of power to force investment in renewables, and b) energy prices are too low to drive green tech innovation in the sector. These two points are essentially the same argument, but nobody is building geothermal plants on volcanos in El Salvador to run smelters, so you need real demand to make those plants happen. Cryptocurrencies create demand for cost efficient power generation that just wasn't there before.
Environmentalists should be happy about the increased demand for electricity instead of complaining about its carbon and climate effects, as the only thing that is going to drive the real technological change and the innovation required to reduce carbon is demand for existing resources at higher levels and prices.
Cryptocurrencies are a big part of solving the environmental problems activists identify. People for whom climate is really just a proxy for arbitrary narrative and for progress toward total centralization probably aren't happy about having the problem they're leveraging solved, but making geothermal and renewables viable by connecting their production directly to infinite demand from the velocity of money itself is how we can drive technology changes that shift us to renewables in a single lifetime.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and if I had to bet on people responding to a crisis narrative vs. having clear incentives to innovate on renewables, I would bet huge on the latter.