Calling it solidarity with Ukraine is an understatement. People reduced the consumption because they couldn't afford it anymore — for big economical and diplomatic reasons.

I know plenty of people who reduced their gas consumption way before their contracts got updated. No financial stimulus, pure feeling of civic duty and solidarity - with Ukraine, with those who already had adjusted contracts, and out of fear for what would happen in the coming winter.

Tbh, for me (in the Netherlands) it was the costs that went from 120 euro per month up to 600 per month. I'm ashamed to admit we were able to cut about 40% by simple measures.

If something is cheap why conserve it?

As a Dutch citizen I'm using up an entire African village worth of water every month because it costs almost nothing. There are probably people on this planet right now living like the Fremen.

I really don't get the underlying smugness of this comment. It outright disgusts me, if I'm being honest...

I'm not sure if it's intended to be smug. It's a statement of fact, and to me, it sounds like it implies that maybe these things should be more expensive, to encourage us to conserve more.

If you conserved more water, would the African village have more?

This would be a use case that nuclear is made for since heating during the winter is a constant load that doesn't change at a moment's notice.

Desire for efficiency is not exactly a good emotional drive for change (except maybe for Germans), now spite on the other hand...

Desire to develop agriculture was not good emotional drive for nomads that hunted and gathered until there was nothing left, but it was an important civilisational step. Also I've lived in Germany for over a decade now, and I've concluded it's the least efficient country one can imagine. But it's rational to save and not waste energy just as it is to nurture and not destroy your surrounding.