This isn't groundbreaking research or anything. He does give a few examples of his rebound [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)</a>]. Paraphrased: while the average energy consumption to heat 1m^3 went from 365kWh in 1973 to 215 in 2005, energy devoted to heating rose 20%. Average temperatures in residential buildings rose from 19 to 21ºC.<p>He can't reasonably pin all these increases on 'Green Tech' alone though. (Maybe people don't wear fancy suits as much, instead opting for t-shirts. Voila more chauffage.) Cheap heat probably does make it easier for someone to kick up the thermostat, but so do other factors he neglects to mention.
This seems like the standard gloom and doom article that is easy for journalists to publish for an audience looking for an enemy to hate on.<p>Energy efficiency and end-user economic efficiency can be separated. The simplest way would be to tax the fuels and use those funds to subsidize the financing or purchase of efficient equipment.<p>The article is stretching arguments too far. The savings of money do not necessarily get applied to more energy intensive purchases. They have no data to back their argument up. Those savings could be applied to renewable energy investments...then electricity is almost free and not scarce/finite.