It matters to the extent that saying "environmental harm is a deliberate design choice of bitcoin" is false, rather than true.

And, again, my point is - it doesn't matter if it was a deliberate design choice or not.

Enviromental harm is the reality of bitcoin. And should be on the addressable agenda.

I do have to say that environmental harm from bitcoin vs any other dumb thing people use computers for seems somewhat odd, but I'm happy to admit that I definitely haven't looked into it enough to argue. That's not what I was arguing though, I only ever commented to specifically refute that any environmental damage was deliberate, because it struck me as an especially absurd statement. I can totally see how it may have come across as an argument that because the harm wasn't deliberate it isn't bad, that was my bad. I should have made that more clear.