When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
The best way to reduce consumption, especially for a fungible product like electricity, is by increasing the price. The higher the price someone pays, the less they're going to "waste".
The dilemma is gauging and factoring into the price of a product the cost of externalities, especially externalities that are remote from the consumption. Guaging the cost is difficult (we normally use free markets to do that for us), but factoring the cost into the price is easy.
You can remove subsidies, e.g. for things like coal.
You can tax generation, like a carbon tax.
You can tax consumption, and even get fancy, like using progressive taxation (i.e. low base rate so people can operate their refrigerator, with an increasing rate as consumption grows).
Another alternative is energy saving measures. California has very aggressive energy efficiency requirements for all kinds of products, not just cars. They lead by far every other U.S. state, the U.S. federal government, and even Europe. Most people are unaware of it. Conservative economists argue that it just shifts consumption to other uses. But in _reality_ it's been highly effective; it's a significant reason why California has the lowest per capita energy consumption in the country. The fact of that matter is that changes in consumption patterns are relatively inelastic (as are, notably, responses to energy pricing). So as long as California continues to impose and amend efficiency regulations, it can continue hastening more optimal, more economically efficient energy consumption compared to the "free market" laggards. The trick is that the energy efficiency standards very closely track the state of industrial manufacturing techniques, maximize efficiency gains while minimize manufacturing costs. It's a small example of "central planning" by technocrats gone right. It works because it's practical to quantify the costs (changes in technology and manufacturing methods) and benefits (fewer watts) with a high degree of accuracy; and because if there's a miscalculation and the burden imposed is too high, people simply won't buy new products and will continue using the older, more inefficient ones, so there's a strong signaling loop back to the technocrats.
BTW, it's worth pointing out that we do _all_ of these things. At least, California does. So to answer the question of when we'll begin doing it, we already are, and have been for decades. The real question is, can we do better....