Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I'm advocating for the increased ability of humans to harness more energy per capita, not that increased actual consumption of energy per capita is always a good thing (though I'd say the latter is almost always true).
That conscious privation in the face of abundance is good for you in certain cases does not mean that as a matter of public policy, we should strive for privation instead of abundance.
This doesn't look at the potential causes for high energy use. The geographical and infrastructural conditions of the US don't necessarily apply elsewhere.
It's not the point, having cheaper energy is not going to magically reverse priorities. Focus on what's important. Anyway, you work it out. I'm not gonna waste my time having a discussion here.
I understand. My point is there is no reason to reduce energy usage. There is reason to reduce "dirty" energy usage. There is an abundant supply of "clean" energy.
The subthread OP (antisthenes) was referring to the global (system level) inefficiency of large-home far-out living, not the inefficiency for a household's budget (which is distorted by policy).
For purposes of that calculation, it's double-counting to include the solar panel energy, because we can already put a solar panel at that location regardless of whether you live and commute from there; your choice to live there did not expand our solar energy capability, and you're still avoidably drawing down the supply of clean energy.
Just to clarify: I'm not criticizing your decision, only justifying why it's not an argument against this being a systemic inefficiency.
> Reducing energy consumption was however much more doable.
This I agree with 100% but is generally not something people have been keen to do. They want to drive more, air condition more, eat more animal protein, fly to more places, etc. The last 80 years of prosperity have been driven by increased consumption. And nobody seems keen to be the generation of "less is more".
We don't need to reduce our standard of living. We need to change our energy sources to renewables and nuclear. Incentivizing density over sprawl would be good too. As well as efficiency. The only people arguing we need to drastically reduce energy usage are people arguing against doing anything. It's a strawman.
>> we'll need to consume vastly more energy if we want to make people richer, healthier and happier
I have frequently heard this argument made - often as here axiomatically.
No argument that changing energy sources is crucial. But I would not dismiss a plan to also reduce overall energy consumption while maintaining or improving quality of life indicators.
Lowering energy consumption isn't the end goal, lowering harmful emissions is. If in the future, energy is produced entirely by solar, hydro, and nuclear, vehicles/machinery use little or no fossil fuels, and air conditioners have continued to be improved wrt use of coolant/leakage, then there's no need to reduce consumption because consumption is harmless.
In the meantime, pricing poor people out of electric is not a good solution.
"If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy."
We don't. That's your premise, and you argue that reducing energy consumption represents a regression. A week of vacation per year would consume less energy than someone working in many of the places I have worked. "Our demands" for energy are not realistic, valid or sustainable. We don't need more energy.
reply