Well, it wasn't my intent to offer a complete "critique" here in great depth. While I did explain some of the reasons that I think this argument is overstated, the main purpose of my post was to point out how the overly broad and sensationalist framing of the research findings actually undermines the discussion that The Breakthrough Institute would like to foster.
One of the strengths of the scientific research regarding climate change is how robust it is - many different disciplines all investigating the same physical phenomena but in very different ways. The strength of the case is made by the robustness of the overall picture. Unconvinced by sea level rise? Then there's patterns of ecological stress suggested by greater threats of extinction, etc.
In contrast, BTI is pushing a counter-intuitive and sensational finding - that "energy efficiency" does not lead to a reduction in energy efficiency. Dig a little deeper and you find that the underlying analysis has to do with an economic paradigm that places technology shifts at the heart of the analysis.
This analysis is simply asserted to be superior to the other methods of answering the same questions, without really putting forward any explanation of why that might be the case. I may be slightly oversimplifying here, but my point is that there is a lot of evidence that energy efficiency programs do lead to energy savings over a period of time, and that reduces energy use over a period of time.
Where I think that the authors have a point is that in the long run (e.g., the equivalent of a climate model being run for centuries), technology change does not drive fundamental shifts in how society allocates resources to energy. I'm not completely convinced by their evidence as to the magnitude of this effect, but I think there is a point here.
But coming back around to the point of my post, it is that the sensationalist framing of this finding feeds the "denier" myth machine with yet another meme that bears little resemblence to what the research community actually considers correct. New appliance energy standards being proposed? Remember, "energy efficiency" doesn't save energy, they'll say, so vote "no." Got a cheap way to generate electricity at home? It'll just encourage more energy use and won't end up displacing anything.
If we're looking for a critique-free energy resource, it won't be found. But when we are thinking about the various energy resource options, there is a lot of history and experience that needs to be brought to bear in evaluating the value of each resource. And if it is that depth of technical critique that you are looking for, I can refer you to some very experienced experts who can comment on the broad topic on how to measure and value various kinds of investments in energy efficiency.
Plenty has been written about the challenges that climate scientists have in framing their message, and it isn't surprising that the same would be true of researchers whose passion is technology. But considering that BTI's whole raison d'etre is reframing and breaking through, then when they get the reframing very wrong, well, they need to be reminded that their work will have consequences for those of us who are trying to make changes one new program at a time.