Exactly. Naysayers have always been against Bitcoin one way or another. The ends don't justify the means. Bitcoin's energy consumption is put to a good cause. If it wasn't by the large number of miners supporting the Bitcoin blockchain, the network would've been extremely vulnerable against 51% attacks. The high energy consumption is rather a feature than a bug of PoW consensus. Despite PoS and DPoS' energy efficiency, they're not as secure as PoW. What matters here is security/decentralization/censorship-resistance above anything else. Of course, I'm not discarding the fact that there's room for improvement (in terms of energy consumption). PoW could be improved to a point where it consumes less energy while retaining the same level of security. Everything will depend on both software developers and ASIC hardware manufacturers. They'd need to work together in order to reduce Bitcoin's energy footprint for a cleaner world. With or without improvements, Bitcoin's energy consumption will be high as long as there is a plethora of miners supporting it. There's nothing we can do about this.

All in all, there's no need to worry about Bitcoin's current mining state. It tells us that it's more alive and healthy than ever. As more miners join the network, energy consumption will rise like skyrocket. If this keeps up, we can expect Bitcoin's energy consumption to become comparable to the whole wide world. Once that happens, Bitcoin will become truly impenetrable against external attacks. Just my thoughts

You mean environmental pollution. Okay, look at the thermoelectric plants, the nuclear power plants, the clothing factories, the leather shoes, the big cattle farms, or anything that can be compared.
Miners make Bitcoin and it's valuable, everyone loves Bitcoin.
The miners aren't annoying people at all, and as a result, the waste from those factories affects the environment and other people.

I believe we haven't recognized the other potential breakthroughs of Proof of Work yet, and how it could build a new platform for a world energy market.

The solution for mining rigs (large scale rigs) in the case of reducing their environmental impact is by moving it closer to the source. We are in the future, most countries are starting to go for green energy which means that the energy output will improve without a significant or faint impact to the environment. The article only talks about the output of the network but do not point what source they are using (i.e. Nuclear, coal, solar, wind, geothermal etc). This is a pretty small problem if you simply take a stepback.

Many people in the forum have not realized how the POW aspect in Bitcoin is the MOST IMPORTANT part of "blockchain technology".

It's POW that solved the Byzantine Generals' problem, it's POW that makes Bitcoin decentralized and therefore censorship-resistant. It's the missing piece of Szabo and others' attempts in making a stateless digital currency.

In my opinion, electricity is not such a problematic issue now. Every year we use more and more energy obtained from alternative sources. The production of solar panels is growing and it is constantly being improved and cheaper. Europe and many other states have even embarked on a policy of rejecting traditional energy sources such as oil and gas, which pollute the environment. Therefore, I am very optimistic about the opportunities in the energy sector.

For "them", it should. Because they do not understand how ground-breaking POW actually is as the foundation of BITCOIN as a stateless, decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency.

Everyone promoting "blockchain technology" missed the point.

Having a decentralized energy market/ energy routing system (smart grid) where anyone could buy or sell energy to a specific consumer or producer, no matter if he lives in my neighborhood or at the other end of the world. That would incentivise anyone who is capable to produce and sell energy.

Bitcoin need more green energy to be more innovative