Those things probably wouldn't reduce per capita energy consumption. Energy is extremely fungible; it would likely trigger Jevon's paradox [0] and results in rising demand for energy.
The only way to reduce per capita energy consumption is to ban people from doing things, or tax them until the poor can't afford it any more. An economy won't leave energy untapped because people are using it more efficiently. Energy is very valuable.
Particularly in Germany's case, if per capita energy use is dropping, it is quite likely it is because people can't afford to buy some of Europe's most expensive power. That tends to upset.
> The only way to reduce per capita energy consumption is to ban people from doing things
The way to reduce energy consumption is to a have a more efficient infrastructure and more efficient consumer devices. In the private sector, public sectors and the industry.
Increasing 'efficiency' is a huge goal. This starts with using less primary energy for the production of the same amount of electricity, using so-far wasted energy (like heat from power plants), using less stand-by energy, increasing transport efficiency, use of less energy-intensive production processes in industry, ...
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.
> The only way to reduce per capita energy consumption is to ban people from doing things, or tax them until the poor can't afford it any more.
Per capita energy consumption has been dropping in Europe, but also in North America over the past few years. Not aware of any bans or unaffordability issues there:
> Not aware of any bans or unaffordability issues there
Well, crude oil prices went from $35 -> $70 around 2005 and have generally been floating around there since, with short periods of time (a year or two) where they drop down [0], coal did something similar from $50 -> $80 [1]. In the US, coal use for electricity immediately started dropping off, and Natural Gas has been replacing capacity [2]. There was a 5 year period where gas (ie, car fuel) prices were just out of control, and a long period of time where they were just high.
Most of the US's energy is sourced from petroleum and coal [3, 4]. I'd say there is some evidence here that the drop in per capita use was more due to the price rising by a very large margin than some sort of efficiency gain, and the EIA article you reference is, in my view, somewhat optimistic if they think that sort of price movement doesn't cause people to change their lifestyles. This all times in roughly with when per capita energy use started to level off then fall. I'd suggest that although cheap natural gas has absorbed some of the shock, there is evidence of cost pressure if you care to look.
The only way to reduce per capita energy consumption is to ban people from doing things, or tax them until the poor can't afford it any more. An economy won't leave energy untapped because people are using it more efficiently. Energy is very valuable.
Particularly in Germany's case, if per capita energy use is dropping, it is quite likely it is because people can't afford to buy some of Europe's most expensive power. That tends to upset.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox