This is cost efficiency and it seems pretty realistic currently to me. Cost is a major factor and when the petroleum crisis was triggered in the 1970's the eco

This is cost efficiency and it seems pretty realistic currently to me. Cost is a major factor and when the petroleum crisis was triggered in the 1970's the economic devastation was front & center without nearly as much consideration for climate. Regardless, the urgency was greater and I thought they had equations that converged on this approximate outcome at about this point into the wondrous, unknowable, far-future-if-it-was-going-to-get-here 21st century. Without much attention to the climate, there might have been more awareness of the environment in a more locally-focused way though. Before long they had bumper stickers that said "No Nukes". Now I really do like the data presentation with the relative bar graph on a linear scale starting at zero on the left. Realistic efficiency improvements are shown but conservation is not on the chart. Under ideal conditions theoretically it would be "so cool" if total usage were to be cut in half, and the right-hand half of each bar would simply be lopped off with no further worry about the highest-cost options for each mitigation. But even if the lowest-cost half was lopped off instead, the scope of needed mitigation is so dramatically lower that still nothing else even comes close. I guess you would have to say that conservation is "off the chart" in it's effectiveness.