Surely the whole point of these studies is to highlight waste. We all don't want our lifestyles to change, so the idea is to make the small changes to allow things to largely carry on in the way that we currently enjoy.
To do this we need to introduce efficiencies and reductions where we can, with out having to regress to a lifestyle reminiscent of the 1950's.
All I see in Lewis Pages articles are stories highlighting some research or recommendation that he rubbishes as not being worth the effort and frankly all it does is make him look short sighted.
What is at issue in this particular article is aggregate wastage.
Wastage. What is your TV/Satellite Box/Media Centre/PS3/xbox/laptop actually doing in standby. Absolutely nothing.
How much electricity is it using to do absolutely nothing. A little bit (a tiny bit even).
What benefit do you get. slightly speedier start up? Not having to walk across the room and power it on manually?
And at what cost.
Well - lets assume that each person in the UK wastes just 2kWh a year (I would probably suggest its more than this but lets go low so it doesn't sound like I'm trying to overstate my point).
Across every person in the UK.
Thats 120GWh. Which isn't a huge amount of energy. But lets have a quick glance at Lewis's other articles. Lets see:
The main thrust of which is all "Its not worth the effort to make any changes because the benefit is so tiny'
Well - I put it to you. These changes, not wasting milk, not wasting water and reducing the amount of meat we eat* are all tiny but they aggregate over a nation of 60 million (or a world populace of ~7billion) to become significant savings.
Lewis Page is taking numbers, taking tiny bites and arguing each tiny point down and refusing to accept that there is a larger potential for efficiency and saving that needs to be considered. He is doing this to support his own short sighted ideology of profits before sustainability.
Why he chooses this destructive selfish approach I can't say, I just wish he wouldn't.