Unless there is a world government that dictates "no" I don't see why arguing with the market that clearly is saying "yes" is worthwhile. Even if externalities like "damage to the planet" were properly priced in by each country and energy source chain that still wouldn't guarantee the energy usage would go down, it just might be slightly less profitable. (From my standpoint there's currently no such thing as energy waste through human activity since the vast, vast majority of local energy in our solar system is not being used for any purpose, "wasteful" purpose or no.)
The whole idea is that if the price of electricity reflects its full cost, including externalities, then you'll no longer waste it. If people keep mining bitcoins in that environment, then it's because bitcoin mining actually provides more value than the cost of the energy it consumes.
If the fact that we're eight light-minutes away from a zero-maintenance 400YW fusion reactor makes it hard for you to consider human energy usage to be waste, just think of it in terms of CO2 pointlessly added to the atmosphere instead.
It doesn't help to think of CO2 pointlessly added either since I don't think mining is pointless. Now if they kept their existing setup but tweaked it so they still do all the computation but never submit any successful blocks, or just kept buying hardware and setting it on fire, then I guess I'd agree that seems pointless and wasteful (even if inconsequential compared to the giant ball of fire that's currently severely underutilized), but only because it's entirely and obviously unprofitable. Since "waste" by other metrics is so subjective I try to only consider the best proxy I can think of, which is cost and benefit figures. I don't put efficient LEDs in my house because I buy into the environmentalist argument of trying to live while using less energy personally, or live while "wasting" as little as I can, but because it saves me a significant amount of money. Similarly I don't stress out about "waste" if I go to sleep but forgot to turn some lights off because although I still have to pay for it, it's not very much. Even when the cost is high, like buying a lemon car, I don't feel bad about waste having to get rid of it and get a different one but about the extra cost.
The only way to affect miners is probably with economic consequences, rather than environmentalist philosophy. Maybe less CO2 would be added if the mining costs were higher, maybe not, and in any case I still have no idea how to price in the rise in CO2 due to a ton of SHA hardware cranking away, independent of whether it's powered by solar panels or water or coal. You'd have to have some sort of sensor on each unit (and the units involved in its manufacture -- put one over my mouth while you're at it) to capture its CO2 output at each moment of time (since it might not always be on due to repairs or whatever), and then you'd have to price the cost of each bit of output somehow, and who should pay it at what times.
To price the CO2 emissions of miners, you don't try to track the miners themselves. You tax CO2 emissions at the source (i.e. the coal-fired power plant the miners are plugged in to), and then the miners pay for it through higher electricity costs. If they use solar or wind instead then their electricity prices wouldn't reflect that tax. If they use a mix, the price will partially reflect that tax.
If you can price in the consequences at their origin then the rest just works itself out, whether it's LEDs or cars or bitcoin mining.
