[explaingarlic]

I don't necessarily disagree with using increasing efficiency as a vehicle for survival in this European apocalypse but you need to consider proportionality/scale of the problem.

In less than two years, the price of the usage of public grid electricity will have increased in the U.K. from ~£1,600 to £6,500. These useless household statistics only help to hide the fact that businesses, who do things with this electricity that don't include running a T.V. pointlessly for 8 hours a day, or heating an unoccupied room, are going to suffer more than anyone. It's easy to take the British consumer's word for it, and understand that a bill which served as a relatively small expense in a past life will now be 4x bigger than it was before, but the reality is that doing things is significantly less affordable. Manufacturing, hospitality, healthcare, public and private services etc. will all be smashed to bits, and their utilities bills aren't going up 300% but more like 500-1500%.

Is it remotely possible to push energy efficiency to the point that we are using half of the energy we were before? It's entirely possible, in my mind. With trillions of dollars of investment.

It's simply not worth it. It's better to take the money and run, if daddy warbucks is offering to give us 3.9% APR on a couple hundred billion dollar loans, than it is to pay in cash and pray for better times with improvements that come along with science and technology.

Loans on the scale that nations take add additional risk to the creditors - the risk of not paying them back is a final one.

If a million people don't pay their credit cards off in a year, it doesn't matter - the market is full of those that will. But if U.K. gilts don't pay out, then a lot more people are screwed, and there's a lot more incentive to keep that cash cow mooing.

[iso1631]

That's fine, give the extra money directly to the person consuming electricity, which allows them to choose whether to use that money to fund the energy use if they need to, while encouraging

My company has a lot of equipment it keeps on needless because it's cheaper than the manpower to turn it off and back on. If demand is lower at the weekend they could use the money to shift some of their electric use to a weekend and pay people more to use it then.

Instead we are encouraging people to use energy as before, which was slightly more profitable than another option, rather than taking the same money but putting the power into the hands of the people using it. It's a paternalistic socialist approach which disempowered the person buying on the market, it's the exact opposite of what the conservative party should be about.