Meeting the energy challenge

With the rising cost of oil (and thus all associated fossil fuel sources, in the near future), one has a right to expect some sense in the thinking of those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of meeting this challenge on behalf of the country's hapless citizens.
Unfortunately, the reality is total lack of understanding since "energy" is being considered as an expendable necessity just like money. Why is it so difficult to understand that energy needs to be conserved and policies everywhere (even in the United States where conservation is now the "buzz-word") are focusing on Energy Conservation while we do not even include the word "Conservation" in our thinking process. Without conservation policies and subsidizing gas by as much as 100% (compared to the international price), we openly encourage wastage.
Energy needs to be conserved in every sector, but two areas require special attention, if we really want to reduce the long-term impact of high energy costs to the country's economy.
Industries use an enormous quantity of gas and oil gas and with subsidised gas available to them, they can "afford" to waste and they waste knowingly! Whether you analyse a cement plant or sugar mills or conventional industries generating steam or hot water (chemicals, textile, tyre manufacturing etc), we are infamously inefficient and ofcourse, it is the nation that pays for this inefficiency by doling out funds to subsidise natural gas (and oil, to some extent) when this money is so desperately required for basic needs like health, education, civic infrastructure, etc.
Buildings designed for energy (and water) usage, even in all major cities, is so wasteful that it is really not understandable. Even buildings constructed by professionals lacks basic energy conservation concepts. Whereas the whole would is moving rapidly to "Green Building Concepts," we are actually moving further away. Most buildings are energy and water guzzlers and in the absence of any Building Code, no one is responsible for this very wasteful approach. (Country's Building Code, prepared in the late 80s by the Ministry of Housing and Works, was never approved by a "competent authority" and now, instead of a basic building code to meet the green building concepts, we want to develop a hi-fi Building Energy Code which can never be applied in a country like ours!).
Requirements of rating green buildings are known widely and these can result in as much as 50% energy and water saving, if only a sensible Building Code could be followed. It should always be kept in mind that for countries like ours, there will never be enough of resources for the general population if conservation does not start right from the top and followed strictly all the way down!
What should we be doing? For industries, efficiency must be enforced and through intelligent counselling, these must be encouraged forcefully. Even with subsidised electrical energy and gas availability at half the international price, our cost of manufacturing major items are higher than imported ones. Textile products continue to be under pressure from "cheap" competition since we just refuse to use energy-efficient processes for production of electrical energy and steam or hot water so essential for textile finishing. Our sugar production costs are so high that imported sugar with freight and handling can be sold at a lower price.
Same is the case with cement or even steel products from the Steel Mills! The difference is that we just refuse to upgrade our processes to make them more efficient and there is no counselling or advice from those who are responsible for this nations' destiny. Each of the above mentioned industries are competing with an efficient process and the combined heat and power systems play a very important role in reducing costs.
In our case, if an industry applies to a gas company for natural gas to be used on the most inefficient boilers for steam or hot water or the production of cooling, the gas will be sanctioned without much ado, but if any industry applies for the gas to be used in a efficient combined heat and power system, meeting all the steam or hot water requirements and additionally producing electrical energy without any extra gas this will be referred to Islamabad for approval under the power generation policy! Can anyone justify this logic?
What are the other countries doing to encourage the combined heat and power systems? USA, now for many years, encourages this by even giving special privileges to sell additional power at a reasonable cost.
Down the line even Bangladesh has a much higher gas tariff for the inefficient boiler-producing steam or hot water compared to tariff for power generation. When will our energy experts understand the real conservation advantages of combined heat and power (or cogeneration) system?
For buildings, the energy wastage is phenomenal! The buildings get approved without the basic conservation requirements due to the complete absence of a building code. Once in a while, one sees advertisement from Wapda (Electrical distribution co) discouraging the use of air conditioners ("one typical air-conditioners stops power for 3 power looms) but there is no "competent authority" to ensure buildings with energy conservation features which would require less energy and still be reasonably comfortable!
Again, gas companies take the cake! If the building owner applies for gas for central air-condition housing, this will be sanctioned without much trouble but if he applies for the same gas to be used for combined heat and power systems, which would fully meet the air-conditioning needs and also generate power without any additional gas, this will be refused as permission from Islamabad would be required! What are we up against? Do we really need enemies to hold us down or are we quite enough to do that on our own?