Thinking about PoS vs PoW in terms of cost and environmental impact

PoS defenders claim that it consumes 99'98% less ressources than PoW.

But if this is true, why didn't the fees plummet? The users of the Ethereum network are paying the same price to process transactions as before The Merge.

Why? Easy, because you will always need a budget to secure the network. It just happens to be spent differently. Let me explain:

In the case of PoW, all the value that the users pay to get transacions processed goes DIRECTLY to energy consumption.

Where does it go with PoS?

Answer: it goes to goods and services consumed by the stakers when they use the benefits obtained from their stake, good and services that consume energy and resources in indirect ways.

In other words, PoS does NOT have less environmental impact, and is not more energy efficient, it consumes the roughly the same amount of resources, but indirectly.

Shocked?

Hold on, now it is when it gets funny.

With PoS, this is the deal: stakers "job" is to secure the network by staking their capital, and in exchange of that they receive value (which they use to consume goods and services produced with energy).

Stakers produce value (security for the network) and receive value in exchange (goods and services paid with the users fees).

With PoW, on the opposite, the network is secured directly by BY MACHINES, the miners, and the persons that in PoS would be able to consume good and services from securing the network, THEY NOW HAVE TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO PRODUCE VALUE BECAUSE THE SECURITY OF THE NETWORK IS ALREADY DONE BY MACHINES.

What is the net result? PoW produces more value for the society than PoS, because the security budget goes to energy instead of to stakers pockets. PoS is a step backwards.

Where did I learn this?

Here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/.amp/culture/bitcoin-not-proof-of-stake-solves-energy

This has been a SHOCK when I understood it.

I hope this is not rage downvoted, and it is discussed instead.