Big changes in a group result from small changes. Whether those changes can add up or multiply to become "enough" depends on how we leverage them. As Alan points out, many of the savings allow or even create other savings. Efficient computers or office lighting leading to less need for air-conditioning, for instance.

If you look only at the big savings, you defeat yourself. Helping 200 people cut their consumption by 1% has four times the initial impact of cutting your own usage by 50%, but it also starts those 200 other people on thinking about consumption in a new way.

Very few people identify with those who have made huge reductions to their consumption at the cost of what are seen as large impacts on their lifestyle. How many have emulated Michael Mobbs, for instance? People take most notice of those they see as like themselves, and who have made changes the observer sees as fitting into their own way of living.

Many applications of a technology such as air conditioning will be a shortcut to thinking about the design of the space to be made comfortable. Doing that thinking may make the space without air conditioning far pleasanter than the old design with air conditioning.

And once you have done the thinking on your space, others can build on that thinking and do even better elsewhere.

It does not help to act like a missionary, presenting perfect solutions to huge savings. We need to inspire people to adapt ideas to their own circumstances so that they can feel a sense of achievement and involvement. That means a multitude of very small changes leading to a paradigm shift.

"Space without air conditioning " .. John... That should definitely be a mandatory subject, for the "built environment " / architecture students, who may go on to be our architects and town planners..
My early experience of this concept, was growing up in the city of Brisbane. A place dominated by grand, (and not so grand), old queenslanders. ( the design , not the people :) ... Houses... spaced adequately... and raised to let the prevailing north east sea breeze provide natural cooling.. Admittedly , they were freezing in the short " winter ", but that could be improved by simple additions like insulation , double glazing and screening out the south westerlies. The urbanisation of Brissy, after expo 88, and the subsequent "mexican" invasion, bringing their southern climate designs..( and complete lack of understanding of the use of a vehicle lane change indicator ..I must add :), led to the queenslander being butchered. ..Two houses fitted on to one block, the removal of the battens and the building in between the old stumps, interrupted the breeze.. and left little choice for the sweating resident, but to install air conditioning. The subsequent developments, to accommodate the ever increasing numbers of southern refugees, have been in familiar low set brick sweat boxes, that have no place in the ( sub ) tropical climate . The short sighted features like, no eaves, and verandahs on the south side of these ill designed buildings, showed little respect for the design experience of the original builders and residents. The electricity network soon overloaded with the growing numbers of air conditioners. The residents of this modified " built environment", now have little option but to pay the escalating energy prices, and are simply fish in a barrel... The Brisbane City Council really has a lot to answer for.. Clem Jones would turn in his grave.. The relaxing of building and development guidelines should be brought before a royal commission, as we watch the results, every second year now, of the folly of the naive who the council allowed to build on the river flood plain . The Maurice Blackburn class action may reveal when the rot set in, but in the end it will be the humble rate payer and energy consumer, who will ultimately pay the price for the poor decisions, made by a council in search of a bigger rates take... Maybe,.. the inevitable outcome of the lack of training in the perils of mixing ignition sources with explosive atmospheres, will solve the problem, as ever more natural gas is pumped in to the city. Maybe there will be a "big bang" ..and Clem Jones ghost will be seen resurveying the burnt ground, with a keen and understanding eye for "space without air conditioning..

my understanding is that the utility operators are guaranteed a rate of return on their investment in infrastructure, i.e. they get more money over expanding the network than actually meeting needs.

This costs money as is reflected in increasing prices, leading people to reduce their consumption, leading to less demand, leading to higher prices etc etc.

So the utilities get a bonus for increasing the network, have to buy less fuel and get more money for the same effort.

Liam J,

It would seem, you have missed the point entirely, of my post. Your points 1 thru to three, really are a joke, right.

No 1. Point out to me, where I've actually saved any money. From where I sit, I HAVE reduced my foot print, BUT am paying MORE then I ever have. So how the hell have I gained ?

2. Now I know your joking, lower consumer behaviour ? others follow suit ?Do you really believe this ? I ask again, what's the point, if my costs keep increasing despite lowering my useage ? What's the benefit to me ?( I've demonstrated quiet clearly, I thought, with my hands on experiences with our state water corp.) This is not theory, or a certation or whatever, it is FACT and ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVIDANCE.

3. Signal to suppliers/Govts I don't need infrastructure ? WOW, you really are disconnected from reality. For every consumer that reduces their footprint, our Govt brings in immigrants that use double of what I cut. Moreover, the same Govt has stated, it intends to TRIPLE the population of my state. At the same time, we are being told resources are running low, we need to consume less.
Excuse me ? Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this practice ?
If it were up to me, I'd disconnect my power and water tomorrow and run totaly on renewables, however, the lovely Govt your refering to, won't allow that, cause the power/water supply runs past my door. I'm OBLIGED to use it. Clearly, this demonstrates the suppliers and Govt really would like to reduce their infrastructure doesn't it ? NOT !

And Ivan Quail.
What are you trying to establish ? Teach me to suck eggs or something ? I am very much aware of Mr Suzuki's pet subjects, I'm also very much aware of the wasteage of our society, I am after all 63 years of age and have travelled the World outside Australia, even lived in Asia for a time.
I don't believe the matters you are harping on about are relevant to my post.

As stated to Liam, I have reduced my planetary footprint, however I cannot see any point in doing so, if the price is continualy increased of the reduced units I use.
Reducing my power consumption, has done absolutely ZERO on a World scale, and done ZERO for the Govt to reduce infrastructure. In point of fact, it was only before Christmas, the media was full of states and private suppliers GOLD PLATING their infrastructure needlessly with the excess funds they were raking in.

Clearly, IMHO, a bloody good example of how our efforts to reduce our costs are doing ZERO for the Global footprint. Kinda pulls the rug out from under your point my friend I would think.
It would also be remiss of me, to not point out the carbon credit fiasco, right now we are ALL obliged to pay for our consumption, the producers all include the costs on our bills and rake in the money.
BUT, these very same producers of pollution, do not have to pay any of the collected funds to the Govt until 2014.
In other words, they can sit on these funds and make a clear profit from them with the interest they earn.
I need some serious explaining, how such an act, benefits any of us with global warming before 2014.

IMHO, we are being had bigtime, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
I believe in ACTION, not theories and platitudes, and so far have not seen any such, from any of the suppliers of my power, or the Fed or State Govts, however, have witnessed much of the opposite.
You say the whole economy is built on growth, not entirely correct, there's been very little growth in Europe and the U.S. in fact some say the opposite is occuring.
However, I conceed the OLD belief was in ever increasing growth. I'm also aware, such beliefs are unsustainable, sad fact is, the powers that be, couldn't give a rat's arse on my beliefs, nor yours for that matter, and will continue their rapicious behaviour long after we are both dead and buried.
Have a nice day mate. :-)