The premise of the article, that we would be richer if we used more energy is preposterously wrong. A light bulb used to be typically 100w, it's now a 1/10 of t

The premise of the article, that we would be richer if we used more energy is preposterously wrong. A light bulb used to be typically 100w, it's now a 1/10 of that. We get a lot more out of the energy now, which means we are in fact richer because we have more things. I just bought a TV which uses a quarter of the electricity of a Tv from a decade ago, and this with 4x as many pixels. The big idea most people fail to grok is that we don't need energy at all, we need certain things energy provides us (light, heating, cooking, entertainment etc). But if I could super insulate my house and use 0 energy to keep it warm, this would not make me poorer. On the contrary. Amory Lovins came up with the idea of "negawatts" a long time ago.