Depends on who you are talking about. Having no climate control to climate control will cost energy no matter how efficient the heat pump. No car to an electric car will cost energy.

For those who have all the that, the de-growth camp asks that people give up meat, down-size their houses and give up one of their cars. Maybe they should, but that will never win any popular support. The answer is always both though, we need to make things more efficient and produce more energy than ever using renewables.

Practical experience.

Products advertised as "energy saving" are almost invariably worse.

E.g. modern dishwashers use much less energy, but also take much longer (4 hours instead of 1 hour).

If there are products that are equivalent in functionality but use less energy (housing insulation? heat pumps?), I'm all for it.

Almost certainly the computer anyone reading this thread on is an example of increased functionality with lower energy use than previous models. The same holds for automobiles (higher mpg) many drive to work, and several other things in daily life.

IMVHO that's a bit of a wrong evolution, personally having a small p.v. domestic system I do prefer things that eat much and constant energy for a short time so I can schedule it when the Sun shine and the produced energy is MUCH more than my needs.

More expensive systems to consume less are logical in cities or for things that can't be scheduled, when p.v. and other renewable with similar output characteristics can't be used.

Much of the rest is just not for efficiency but for sell cheaper crap for the OEM at a bigger price for the customers.

To paraphrase: Sure, I'm for a habitable planet, just so long as my dishwasher doesn't take any longer to finish.

No, my point is, that is a false dichotomy.