I'm not sure I'm picking up what your putting down, but I don't think I disagree with much you've written.
However, if you just increase energy efficiency, energy consumption will not go down. If it was worth your time to get X energy to produce Y results, and now X energy produces Y+1 results, it isn't particularly obvious to wind back X. It makes more sense to keep X constant and enjoy the greater results. If you could justify using X before, it is even easier to justify it now.
If you want to reduce energy consumption without compromising living standards, then you will indeed need to increase energy efficiency, but simultaneously you are going to need very firm measures (bans, punitive taxes, etc) to stop people just enjoying having more stuff for the same amount of effort. I think that is a mistake myself, and likely to lead to very angry voters.
There were predictions years ago that we wouldn't need to work because we would be so productive by this century. They got the productivity increases right, but radically underestimated how much people value leisure vs having more stuff. We still work a 5 day week, despite the fact that we just don't need to do that to maintain a lifestyle our great grandparents had.
> If it was worth your time to get X energy to produce Y results, and now X energy produces Y+1 results, it isn't particularly obvious to wind back X. It makes more sense to keep X constant and enjoy the greater results.
That's where the increase in costs (or the competition from cheaper producers) comes into play. The production costs are increasing and producers are keen to improve efficiency, since it is one way to lower the pressure on production cost.
There are also lots of energy markets where the overall demand is limited.
> reduce energy consumption without compromising living standards
Twenty years ago I had a workstation which consumed 1.5KW/h. Now my workstation consumes 0.1KW/h while being 1000 times faster. I have several other computers around me (mostly with low-power CPUs) which each consume around 0.005KW/h - while each is much faster than the workstation of twenty years ago.
My LED lights are as bright as light before and more flexible - while using 1/5ths of the electricity.
From all I have seen as data, the GDP/capita has been increasing, while energy consumption has been reduced. I don't see my living standards being degraded.
> We still work a 5 day week
You maybe, not me. I'm also travelling a lot less than I used to do - which is alone an increase in my living standard.
However, if you just increase energy efficiency, energy consumption will not go down. If it was worth your time to get X energy to produce Y results, and now X energy produces Y+1 results, it isn't particularly obvious to wind back X. It makes more sense to keep X constant and enjoy the greater results. If you could justify using X before, it is even easier to justify it now.
If you want to reduce energy consumption without compromising living standards, then you will indeed need to increase energy efficiency, but simultaneously you are going to need very firm measures (bans, punitive taxes, etc) to stop people just enjoying having more stuff for the same amount of effort. I think that is a mistake myself, and likely to lead to very angry voters.
There were predictions years ago that we wouldn't need to work because we would be so productive by this century. They got the productivity increases right, but radically underestimated how much people value leisure vs having more stuff. We still work a 5 day week, despite the fact that we just don't need to do that to maintain a lifestyle our great grandparents had.