He is maybe a bit mean, but his point is at least consistent. His whole thesis is that we don't have to reduce energy consumption but just find solutions so that we consume without ruining the enviromnet, or at least find the most impact we can have for reducing the damage right now - at least that is how I read it. And I think that is possibly the only sustainable approach, since it is going to be _very_ hard to convince 7 billion people to give up convenience. It just won't happen.
Hum, ok, increasing the price of energy (because you are not burning the cheapest sources) does indeed push people a little bit into using less energy. I understand his point now.
Now I have to hardly disagree, because we won't solve that problem without some amount of discomfort. And increasing the price of energy so the non-fossil sources can compete better is how can give up the least of it.
It's exactly this attitude that is causing the trouble.