That's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe.
Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die.
But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the goal.
In the short term, sudden changes in energy consumption are very disruptive. (For example, see gas prices and the auto industry last year.) But a longer-term, gradual shift towards less energy usage need not be.
No, to reduce energy use you'd need for people to take conservation seriously and to dramatically improve efficiency. Plenty of energy is wasted on inefficient cars, poor insulation, wasteful industrial processes, and so on.
Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die.
But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the goal.