I'd disagree that there is a contradiction between consumers caring about energy, and the author's view that a carbon price is a key tool for carbon reduction.

I'd disagree that there is a contradiction between consumers caring about energy, and the author's view that a carbon price is a key tool for carbon reduction. They are two very different things. One is end consumers and their monthly bills and the other is business level market economics. There was a lot of buzz about smart meters for electricity, with some very optimistic thinking that once people saw their daily usage they would reduce that usage. That didn't work, and we agree at least here that most people don't think about the cost of plugging in a phone to charge or doing some cooking, these are essentials for their life and they'll do them anyway. On an industry level, with trading of carbon credits and guarantees of origin we're seeing significant financial and brand benefits for companies in carbon reduction and policies do have significant effects. We're seeing another market force affecting company's climate policies, which might end up being more than government policies and carbon trading, which the author hasn't mentioned. Hedge funds, banks and investors are favouring companies with ecological policies, or ceasing to find those with high negative ecological impacts. These are all very real impacts, being made now, are the speed of implementation looks to be increasing. All based on a massive scientific consensus that anecdotes and minor objections do not outweigh. "figuring out where all the energy is hiding" can happen in parallel, and indeed is, but so far there's are no real world solutions that will deliver the energy we need or reduce our ecological impact in the short & medium terms.