Reducing energy consumption will only lead to impoverishment.

Not all reduction of consumption decreases output. For example, leaks could be plugged, insulation can be improved, more efficient machines could be used.

Also, not all output is equal, not does all output have to be done at a fixed time. Heating homes has to be done during winter, but some factories can postpone production a few months to wait for more favourable circumstances.

Furthermore, it's only a reduction in a few energy sources that are required, with gas being the most important. Other sources could be used to compensate to an extent. We're seeing some gas power plants moving back to coal for example. Not great for carbon emissions, but it has more and more flexible sources.

For example, a lot of cities in Germany cut back on indoor pools this summer, and are considering it for the winter.

Sounds trivial, but keeping 25m long indoor pool 23-24 degrees in the winter takes a lot of energy.

It would suck for people who had gotten used to them being open again after the Covid years, but wouldn’t have much negative economic impact.

In France indoor ice rinks are getting closed too. Again, it's trivial but they consume lots of energy.

If you look at the current plans in most countries, they're largely about reducing waste and excessive usage. I mean... you could consider not being allowed to heat your private swimming pool "impoverishment", but probably only if you were comically wealthy and entitled.

(I'm actually a little surprised just _how_ un-aggressive the plans generally are.)

So will permitting extortion of an entire continent by a dictatorship.

The goal is not to permanently ration. The goal is to get through the winter, so there’s time for the longer term fixes to be put in place.

Please tell me how keeping your house at 70 degrees and wearing warm clothing instead of 72 degrees and wearing a t-shirt is impoverishment.

Fortunately, not all energy consumption is gas.

Citation needed.