Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny and is ridiculous. Incandescent light bulbs also consume electricity rather than gasoline, but they were banned for lack of ENERGY EFFICIENCY. The carbon footprint of electric cars is no lower than that of gasoline cars, but rather even higher, taking into account the recycling and cost of producing batteries and investing in their recharging infrastructure with all the associated energy losses.
Another reader who has little understanding of what he is writing about.
Obviously, the topic (trend) with notebooks consuming 150W+ was set by the disgraceful company Intel, which for many years could not improve its technical processes and, against the backdrop of the successes of TSMC and AMD, as their customers, was outright inferior in performance at the same level of consumption, same as AMD processors. To be at least equal, Intel was forced to make increasingly more consuming processors, which is especially shameful and uncomfortable in the consumer laptop sector, because... this one immediately results in overheating and monstrous noise. AMD was forced to follow Intel, which was "overclocking" processors in terms of consumption, with the connivance of antitrust regulators (there are only 2 companies in the x86 market and Intel owns more than 70% of the shares) in order to at least have the same or slightly better performance, although their processors obviously win from 30 to 50% at the same consumption rate.
It is necessary by law, as with incandescent light bulbs, to ban laptops that consume more than 100W at retail (I would even limit it to 80W) - and then, this is the problem of manufacturers, as they will get out by selling the lack of progress in performance. The narrow sector of professional decisions has nothing to do with this. But even there, energy efficiency and carbon footprint should be given priority.