I wish people would actually take a moment to consider such false pro-crypto statements before echoing them. This one is fundamentally broken argument when you actually consider
how much energy PoW systems like BTC actually use *per transaction* vs conventional banking. The whole "take the power back" concept is cringeworthy and unfounded. Take back what power? From whom? To whom? And for what actual benefit?

Note this compares ONE BTC transaction to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND VISA transactions. The scale of energy consumption isn't even on the same planet, let alone comparable or justifiable. A SINGLE bitcoin transaction uses around the same amount of electricity as an average UK household does in THREE MONTHS!
Another completely incorrect statement - it might be repeated by the crypto parasites ad nauseum but it doesn't make it true. I've explained in other threads, but it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how power grids actually work. Take an electricity grid like China (where most of the mining takes place) - were it not for the crypto farms devouring enormous amounts of energy then that energy would be used elsewhere in the country, displacing fossil fuel generation - the location of a consumer on a grid is almost totally irrelevant. Renewables operate as baseload which means they always get used to the fullest extent possible. Load following supply, which tracks with load, is typically fossil fuel based. I.e. more load on the grid = more fossil fuels consumed.
Or put as simply as possible, more mining farms, even in areas claimed to be 'supplied with renewable power', leads directly to an increase in use of fossil fuels and therefore carbon emissions.
There might be a couple of farming locations that use the waste heat for building heating but that is very rare, and even then is still a very wasteful way of producing heat. Burning gas locally or using heat pumps for electrical power are both substantially more efficient. The act of turning coal into electricity is generally around 33% efficient. I.e. where coal is the source of electricity (which it basically is for crypto in countries like China), you have to burn around three *times* as much coal to generate a given amount of heat as you would if you just burned the fuel locally, especially after you factor transmission losses into account.
There is really no sensible way of looking at mining operations in a way where they can be convincingly portrayed as 'green', because they are horrifically far from being green.