Egads! Someone is wrong on the Internet..

Another interesting blog post found via stumbleupon. The basic argument is that energy efficiency won't save the environment. It's a good point and backed up by a valid economic argument, although it's missing some points, which leads to a somewhat *ahem* pessimistic conclusion. At least they're acknowledging economics as the correct starting point, albeit sort of in the same way creationists try to use evolution to disprove itself.
My reply:

A good article and worthy of attention, but I think you’re missing a few crucial points about the larger picture.
1. Efficiency is not the same as conservation. Conservation is the setting aside of resources based on the expectation of future value (usually economic value). Efficiency merely reduces the required inputs of an activity, allowing us to do more of what we want with the same amount of resources.
2. There is one very important class of product that does not necessitate the use of (significant) additional energy or resources. It’s called human capital or more commonly, knowledge. It is produced and replicated across all societies and cultures, everywhere that humans live. It has allowed us to escape the natural population cycles of other animals and prevented mass starvation, ever since Malthus earned economics the name of ‘”the dismal science”. I see no indication that people are running out of new scientific ideas. Quite the reverse, actually.3. We will use up a lot of certain resources but actually, that’s OK. When resources become scarce their price rises, creating an incentive to use less and substitute away. The higher the price, the greater the incentive. That’s precisely why the high oil prices of early 2008 jump-started so much activity in renewable energy, alternative transportation and non-fossil fuel versions of plastics etc. Non-energy products can be recycled and new materials can be invented.
In Conclusion: Have we used fossil fuels to bootstrap our economy in an unsustainable way? Yes. Will the environmental impacts cause more damage than we expect? Probably. Can we invent solutions to both of these problems? Absolutely. It won’t be easy, but what’s different about that?

On Locavorism

Bad news: it's not that simple

Sure, some of our food travels farther than necessary, but it does so largely efficient ways. As a result, the environmental effects entailed in transport are not the main story. There are however a lot of costly externalities, especially from meat production.

My comments here.