Errr, the numbers on the graph don't match the headline, at all. This is partially because they compare two very different percentages, and expect them to canc

Errr, the numbers on the graph don't match the headline, at all. This is partially because they compare two very different percentages, and expect them to cancel each other out, but they don't ;) Let's take https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Nal5V8NG4BaEYnFL2lbcskLtaUE=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4251055/FT_15.11.04_residentialEnergyIntensity_310px2.png https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Nal5V8NG4BaEYnFL2lbcskLtaUE... In 1970, we have 150 btu/sq ft and let's be generous and say 1500 sq ft. So we have a home using 225000 BTU. Now, we have 101.8 btu/sq ft, and 1864 sq ft. That's 188264 BTU. 17% is not nothing, nor is it "offsetting the gains". Note, you can't use the 101.8 number for the new housing graph, since it's an average over all homes. (In fact, you can't really just multiply any of these numbers and have sensible results, but hey, it's a news story!) You'd have to find an average new housing btu/sq ft, which they don't provide. Also note: Greater energy efficiency is entirely possible. You can easily halve the heating energy requirement, for example, by using ground source heat pumps in most places (my GSHP was a 46 SEER , 5.3 COP unit). But this has high monetary cost to retrofit (When done during construction, and factored into the price of a house, it basically costs "not a lot more"). Or you could use per-room mini-splits, or whatever. It's just that people don't care, and so the only thing that forces higher energy efficiency in most cases is building code changes, not consumer demand.