Art For Art's Sake: Emissions For God's Sake?

I will admit to being an art bumpkin. I know what I like (doesn't everyone?). Until reading an opinion piece by Adam Greenfield, I had, however, no idea that some art could endanger the planet (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels). Greenfield describes an 'art' fad, non-fungible tokens (nfts). Nfts are electronic creations (not unlike bitcoins) created from complex arrays of zeros and ones. People can (at great expense) get 'ownership' of a unique nft (even though, it doesn't physically exist). One such expensive item is entitled 'The Mars House'. The trouble with nfts (and bitcoins) is that they utilise enormous (and I mean enormous!) amounts of electricity, to create and maintain. One nft used more electricity than was utilised by the artist's entire studio in 2 years of endeavour. Much of that energy currently comes from burning traditional hydrocarbons (coal, oil and gas). Some artists claim to be mitigating the energetic costs of their nft creations but their descriptions of how they are doing this are not very convincing. I was also surprised by Greenfield's claim that Elon Musk's bitcoin-related activities, probably generated more emissions, than were saved by his electric cars. It just confirms how blinkered people can be (or select to be) about the energy costs of their activities.