The key is emissions, not energy use. If I have a process that benefits mankind (a global, decentralized, permissionless hard money that doesn't suffer from politics or unelected officials) and I am using 100% renewable energy, then there is no environmental cost.
Bitcoin mining is very cutt-throat. It is a bleeding-edge, hyper-competitive business of reducing margins. Because I only needs an energy connection, some HVAC and internet connectivity, miners are very mobile and can move from place to place after setting up shop somewhere. This means that they seek the absolute lowest energy cost (the difference of paying 1c more per kWh can be essential) means that they are the energy consumer of last resort. Hydrodams and other renewables often produce at moments that demand is lower, and having a bitcoin miner nearby that is willing to gobble up all your excess production means your solar farm or hydrodam suddenly makes a profit at most times of the day.
It also means that investors are more willing to invest in renewable energy in places where formerly, building this infrastructure was impossible. There is a village in Malawi, Afrika where building a hydro dam was possible, but not financially sensible. None of the villagers had electric appliances, so building the dam meant running it would not be profitable for a very long time. Now, you can just add a set of bitcoin miners and run the dam at 100% capacity until people start installing freezers, televisions, etc. This benefits the investors, the villagers, and the bitcoin ecosystem.
Bitcoin's environmental costs is a highly politicized complex puzzle that is hardly as negative as the mainstream media and anyone that hasn't researched it claims it is. It bothers me to no end.