Because the "argument" has a limited view, namely that individual liberty is the ultimate goal/blessing/benefit. A blanket "all banning is bad" is just wrong. Saying "are you gonna arrest me from doing math" is like saying "are you gonna arrest me for mixing chemicals?" when you're making a homemade bomb to explode other people. The impact of the current crypto rush is worldwide, this person's energy use to generate BOOBER COIN TM is directly impacting the environment I exist in, why is it OK for your liberty to affect me? Do I then have the liberty to somehow harass/exploit your liberty to make my money?

Not saying banning crypto is the answer, just saying this is reductive and flawed as an argument

Where is this energy towards banking institutions that use even more Tw hours and do even more damage?

Your argument is flawed. Making a bomb has a narrow purpose to do damage. Banking institutions do dramatically more damage. This is a potential alternative removing middlemen from the equation and operating at a fixed rate.

Proof of Work didn't predict the use of ASICs and was intended for common hardware that would make dominating the pool cost prohibitive. Proof if Stake is one alternative although has its own issues.

Yes, greed is what you are angry at. That is absolutely the problem. If you are truly upset about the environmental impact then moving upstream to energy producers should be your target.

Nuclear is astronomically more energy dense and has made significant strides in zero waste plants and safety features. Then again you aren't complaining about the banking institutions impact on climate which outscales crypto and continues to climb.