There is a
correlation between per capita energy usage and GDP
There is a relationship between the two, but it is much more complex
than your comment implies. California's per capita energy use has
been nearly constant for the past 40 years but the state's GDP has
increased well beyond inflation. The relationship between energy use
and GDP is changing in all developed nations, moving to less of an
effect, as exemplified by the California experience. A significant
fraction of China's recent increase in per capita energy use is due
to its heavy investment in manufacturing for other nations (not just
to sell their products to other nations but to build the products
specified by and designed in foreign industries, and intended for
sale in those countries rather than in China).
Energy use reduction as a result of efficiency improvements will not
reduce GDP, and will more likely increase it.
Energy use reduction by conservation efforts will more likely shift
the investment energy elsewhere than reduce it--from building new
power plants to other investments to take advantage of the newly
available capital and the available energy.
Converting energy production from polluting and GHG-emitting sources
to clean sources will require capital investments and will also free
up more capital for more useful investments, such as modernizing the
electric grid and electrifying the transportation sector.
Reduction in total energy use as well as pollution doe to energy
production will save billions of $$ in health care and environmental
damage mitigation.
These actions will not damage our economy, they will energize it.
I have been wondering for a long time why some of our own defense
officials do not
put more emphasis on finding a good substitute for oil and worry less
about where
more oil is to come from. Our people are ingenious. New discoveries
are all around
us, and when we have to make them, we nearly always do.