Well, if I "realistically need both" it is not a false dichotomy. Then it is just impractical. I also don't present a DI-chotomy, I present two sides of potentially a lot of sides. I also don't present the sides as being mutually exclusive, why it is neither a di-CHOTOMY.

Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both? Currently we seem to take the practical approach of choosing none.

>Either you save energy, drive less, etc. or you embrace energy sources like nuclear.

I took this to be an either or statement, apologies if that was not your intention.

>Anyways, I don't think I understand why I practically need both?

Overhauling the entire energy system is a huge effort, even more so when the demands grow year after year. Hitting that target in the requisite timeframe is much easier if the energy demands are lessened through conservation.

åh, I understand. the latter part of my comment was the simpler "edgy" statement.

and yes, I completely agree with your assessment around the overhauling effort.