Have you actually looked into the real environmental impact of AI is compared to, say, eating meat, driving a car, or taking a yearly plane flight? It's a rounding error. Have you looked into the numbers? Compared the environmental impact of your AI use to the environmental impact of taking a yearly vacation on a plane?

The RAM shortage is real, but very temporary. Check the news today! Chip stocks like Sk Hynix are way down because people are worried about over-production. The fact that a new technology caused a temporary shortage in a resource just isn't even a coherent argument against the technology. There's discussion to be had here about whether we should as a civilization reserve some resources for other industries. That's a discussion we could have. But the idea that AI caused a temporary shortage in RAM, so that makes it bad is... like, really ridiculous? You must see that that doesn't even make sense as an argument?

These are not arguments that hold up to scrutiny. You should consider whether you accepted these arguments because you looked into the details and they actually make sense, or if you accepted them because they're telling you what you want to believe.