While not disregarding the relevance of the remainder of the quoted post – the above is an example where the “original claims” are a way of packaging the idea of cost reduction (or at least mitigation of increases). The company could say, for example, “we will be reducing energy consumption as part of our policy to reduce the impact of increasing fuel/energy costs on our profit margins”. Or alternatively, they could frame this (reasonable enough) objective around the current buzzwords of “going green”, “reducing carbon footprint”, or “combatting climate change”.

The important issue here is that whether or not “somebody else” steps in to absorb the energy difference, the relationship is close enough for energy to be regarded directly as money. The fact remains that while (strictly speaking) not every form of energy use has a direct user cost, it is very true that energy in its various forms, whether or not in directly usable state, can quite correctly be regarded as the "currency" of the natural environment, and by extension, all development. The point is that all energy, materials, goods, products and services used in human activities have their origin in the environment, and as such, it is pointless to see economic issues as separate (or mutually exclusive) from environmental issues, in that the economy in itself is defined by (and contained within) the environment.

The individual or company in the cases described above, would not by these small actions, make a tangible difference to the commonly cited issues of energy crisis, environmental uncertainty (weather/climate) and the increasing unavailability of natural resources; however it is more complex than that, since apart from the supply-demand aspects of energy prices, the energy industry is a particularly good example of the fact that the economy is merely a sub-set of the environment. While "human activities have an impact on the natural environment", it is just as (if not more) true that "the natural environment has an impact on human activities".

Often enough, critics of the idea of “sustainable development” state that such a concept is “impossible” or “self-contradictory”. But that is missing the point that the whole idea of “sustainability” in development is a long-term goal; these goals (as defined on an individual basis for a specified location and activity) need to be addressed by setting targets to be achieved in the short to medium term.

So therefore, while much of the discussion and debate on “sustainability” may appear to be a latter day re-packaging of utopianism and idealism, to make sustainability into a more practical reality, the stated goals must be accomplished via targeted actions. A company or individual may not be making a big difference through their small-scale targeted actions, but there is still the potential for the cumulative small actions to add up (or synergise) into something much larger and more significant. And if not, by reducing (or rationalising) energy consumption, the company or individual will still be reducing their own costs.

Related forum posts:
http://www.sustainabilityforum.com/forum/sustainability-discussion/2814-looking-definition-sustainability.html
Five Ways To Cut Your Energy Bill

Thanks Karl.

I think it's helped clear up a significant sticking point for me:

Change is natural. Not wanting to be too poetic, but think of it as a dance with many partners. You don't stand still, you all move in time with the music. If one person gets it wrong they start tripping others up and stamping on their feet until everyone is falling over each other.

Sustainability is about learning to dance. There is a separate job to do picking everyone up off the floor but if you don't learn to dance then you'll trip them up again.

In less poetic terms, sustainability is not about fixing mistakes - it's about making sure you don't compound them by making them again. The actual fixing is going to need something else.