I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)

On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.

"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.

One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?

I think you'll get off to a better start if you think of people as individuals. I doubt you enjoy being assigned to some monolithic dehumanized collective.

Power grab, by who, from who? That sounds very conspiratorial. Can you enlighten me?

Save money? Insulate your quality of life from changes in the global energy landscape? Minimize waste? Self Improvement? Let us set aside "saving the world," thus all the criticism of that goal and focus on a lot of other compelling reasons to use your resources wisely. Are there really any compelling arguments against it?

I'm in favor of conservation and I don't believe that. I don't understand the point of your dichotomy when there exists many options between your two extremes.

One alternative is to realize that a reduction of one's energy footprint on the order of 20-40% can be made simply from awareness and intelligent choices requiring no compromise. I would argue that many of the easy big drivers of conservation improve quality of life and increase happiness. Beyond that change may be required. “Change” may be undesirable, reduce quality of life, or simply ill-informed perception.

A compelling driving force is the economic incentive, which is particularly attractive with a good scheme, e.g. pipe energy savings directly into non-taxable retirement accounts. Additional strategies enable insulation from future energy costs, or even directly hedging changes in future energy costs.

“Saving” becomes a fundamental exercise in efficiency, which should appeal to many types. It is a fundamental exercise in character, which should appeal to other types. It can be competitive, rewarding, challenging, and fun, which should appeal to even more types. It exercises the mind, satisfies curiosity, engages critical faculties, and requires learning and understanding about our connection and place in the world.

I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against applied wisdom or trying one's best. But I’m always open to it.

that is a needlessly salacious description of someone who probably typified those in power at the time, of any race and religion.

30% savings by waiting 2 years? dunno. It hardly would have mattered in the grand scheme of the life of the vehicle except for the minor detail you would also now have approximately the purchase price of that car sitting in an index fund investment account.

A douche? I'm pointing out economic realities. Douchebags ignore economic realities and spend money frivolously.

Surely depreciation matters if you can buy the same car cheaper with a little patience.

I get exactly what I want in used vehicles. All it requires is a little patience. I don't know why you expect any more selection at a new car lot since every used car was new at some point.

That's fine. My early retirement depends on the consumer economy and your unnecessary spending.

Perfect. I plan to retire around age 40. If I'm "forced" into it, then maybe I'll get a nice going away present. It's impossible to assign a value to the 7 years I spent in graduate school, its simply too astronomical. I expanded in ways and explored opportunities that impossible, and frankly inconceivable to me as a 'working man.' In exchange for some mild opportunity costs I spent 15,000 hours of my life doing exactly what I wanted, when I wanted, with who I wanted. When entering the workforce in my late 20s I had the zeal of a 18yr old matched with the maturity of my 40+ year old colleagues and the technical know-how to stand toe to toe with everyone. And a perspective defined by just as much experience as anyone.

Sorry. No. People buying new vehicles are not making a rational choice about useful life. If you buy new cars to drive 15 years, you are doing it very, very wrong.

1. Deep energy retrofits on can reduce energy on buildings by 50%, most of this will payback and the building sector uses as much energy as the transportation sector
2. New buildings can be designed for 60-70% less energy consumption, often at lower initial cost or else certainly at quick payback
3. Educated and sensible use of electricity can trim residential and commercial plug loads by 50-80%
4. A grid dominated by natural gas, solar, and wind, could reduce ghg from the utility sector by 90% at less than 10 cents a kWh. For ~ .22 $/kWh you get storage and ~ 40 kWh of transportation.

All in all, its relatively trivial to reduce the energy footprint of an American by 60-70%. There are lots of Americans who do this. I would wager in fact, that energy conscious consumers do so while maintaining a higher quality of life than average. There are many examples where our "standard of living" is achieved, actually exceeded, in harsher climates (on average), using less energy. The idea that we need 9 GW scale nuclear reactors in the U.S. to run DVRs when similar and cheaper devices exist at 1% of that power consumption doesn't really put the American standard of living in the best light. Similarly the poorly constructed built environment in the US also ends up costing more through unnecessary energy expenditures. The amount of energy and time and money wasted on gross and often deliberate inefficiency greatly exceeds any and all of the transition costs to a more sustainable environment. That you could replace a DVR with a cell phone, make modest home efficiency improvements at 50%+ ROI and save more than the additional cost of solar energy is embarrassing.