You:

So why is more pollution from subject A acceptable, but less from subject B isn't?

My response (in response to another comment):

It being drowned out by the advocacy against AI doesn't mean those voices disappeared, just that there are louder voices now.

You, with the nihilistic doomerism take:

By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand.

Me, responding to the subject:

people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You're just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who's upset should ignore.

What was that about comment history?

Anyway, in response to this:

What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides.

If you're looking for things to improve, then you prioritise the places where improvement will have the most effect.

Anyway, if we want to reduce the environmental argument down as much as you are, then we might as well eliminate nearly all life on earth because living creatures produce emissions and consume water. Point is, your counterargument is complete nonsense and reductionist.

People can be upset by multiple things at once despite your best attempts to argue otherwise.