If you assume that bitcoin uses 10x more computing power than folding, and it uses most of it in China which has far worse pollution, than the estimate comes to 340 deaths per year. That's just direct deaths, who knows how much damage is caused by indirect damage and the long term impact of those wasted resources.
How is it a logical fallacy? Do you see any errors with my math? Are you saying that it doesn't kill people?
It is true that air conditioning kills people and contributes greatly to pollution. That's why there have been a lot of attempts to reduce its use. But bitcoin is way worse. Fortunately far fewer people use it than air conditioning. According to this article, a single bitcoin transaction uses as much energy as a 1.5 households use in a day: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable
That's based on this gwern estimate of the number of deaths caused by the folding@home project: http://www.gwern.net/Charity%20is%20not%20about%20helping
If you assume that bitcoin uses 10x more computing power than folding, and it uses most of it in China which has far worse pollution, than the estimate comes to 340 deaths per year. That's just direct deaths, who knows how much damage is caused by indirect damage and the long term impact of those wasted resources.