The articles you cited could do a better job putting the real numbers front and center and present the real, and anticipated (if Bitcoin takes off) ecological impact on the planet. The coindesk article in particular cites really alarming claims about energy usage but doesn't do any real math to disprove it, and only vaguely hints at possible mitigating arguments. Appeals to emotion, citing ideal visions of Satoshi and using "domestic tumble dryers" (newsweek) as comparisons for energy usage further weaken the point these articles should be making.