> To me, a stable energy/capita isn't prima-facie evidence that they are more efficient! It suggests prices are higher than they should be. TL;DR: If I'm under

> To me, a stable energy/capita isn't prima-facie evidence that they are more efficient! It suggests prices are higher than they should be. TL;DR: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're holding up Jevon's paradox as something that we should _aim_ for? Why? It's not clear to me how you came to this conclusion. Jevon's paradox isn't prescriptive: how do you conclude what energy usage growth (and thus prices) _should_ be? If anything, most policy experts are defining the goal as decreasing the rate of growth of energy growth (ceterus paribus), which means that stable energy/capita is a good thing, not that usage growth is lower than it should be.