Sure, I understand that TWiT has to make money; it’s a business, that was never in question. I am very grateful that TWiT hasn’t gone down the route of caving in to advertiser demands for extra tracking or anything like that, and I attempt to do the survey every year (although it often tells me to go away because I’m overrepresented). I’ve been listening long enough that there were no ads when I started, and it really threw me the first time I heard an ad (living in a country where host-read ads are not a thing), but I accepted that TWiT needed to make money and got used to it. However, regardless of the commercial realities, the ads an organisation chooses to run (especially when read by the host) don’t get to be chosen in a vacuum in which it doesn’t reflect back on them - I’m sure everyone has a line at which they would stop listening; this is mine, I’m not saying it should be anybody else’s.
Thinking slightly more on this on a walk today, I think there are more reasons why this specific ad causes issues for me. I think one is that there is no plausible deniability for someone who covers tech news to know about the environmental impact of Bitcoin. Secondly, for me it drastically undermines any discussions related to climate change in the future.