Making energy too cheap to meter
Summary: If energy is free and doesn&#x27;t impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it.<p>I don&#x27;t know why they think this is a unique perspective, I guess just pointing out that people don&#x27;t discriminate by electricity source when they condemn extra energy use beyond what is needed to do a job. If the electricity source is free and does no harm there is no obvious way to label the electrons.<p>I don&#x27;t understand why they see it as harmful to use less energy to do the same job, as long as the job is done the rest is a bunch of words to confuse the issue. Use less energy = generate less heat = use less heat sink = more compact device, it&#x27;s all coupled and biased towards using what we have effectively.<p>I think perhaps the point of the article is its strawman that people want &quot;constant energy use&quot; which as best I can tell is just made up? I&#x27;m literally the child of professional environmentalists and I have never heard anyone focus on &quot;constant energy use&quot; -- it&#x27;s always about reducing waste (obviously landfill space is an issue beyond energy...), reducing pollution (containment would still be an issue beyond energy...), and improving health (maybe energy can help a little but I mean, mostly beyond energy...).