Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 316 posts

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#11

Post by wil421 »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #8
sp332 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain crop tonnage going up while fertilizer and water use are going down.

Did it occur to you that, like ordinary consumer products, industrial products also oversell their efficacy? There was just a paper released about a widely used pesticide that did not appear to actually increase yields. If the question is, how does crop tonnage go up without water and fertilizer use, maybe the answer really is a computer helped people plan better and be less wasteful. Or all the least efficient farme…

Do you have any sources for your claims? I saw the article about the pesticide on HN or reddit but not anything else you claim.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#12

Post by codesushi42 »

eutropia wrote: post #2

I think the subtext here is obvious to people on HN, but isn't this because so much value is generated using electrons on increasingly efficient computer systems?

No, it's because these things have been replaced by plastics.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#14

Post by TeMPOraL »

This reads to me mostly as the US importing more, so the increased material use doesn't show in statistics. The article also mentions increase in use of plastics.

One thing I'm curious about though - how come energy use stopped being correlated with economic growth? That's new.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#15

Post by danans »

sp332 wrote: post #4
eutropia wrote: post #2

I think the subtext here is obvious to people on HN, but isn't this because so much value is generated using electrons on increasingly efficient computer systems?

That doesn't explain crop tonnage going up while fertilizer and water use are going down.

Much more precise usage of water/fertilizer to optimize yield/input can be enabled by computation and data.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#16

Post by ch4s3 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #14

This reads to me mostly as the US importing more, so the increased material use doesn't show in statistics. The article also mentions increase in use of plastics. One thing I'm curious about though - how come energy use stopped being correlated with economic growth? That's new.

That doesn't explain the fertilizer usage very well, and from what I understand the story with ag is improvements in efficiency.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#17

Post by chrisco255 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #14

This reads to me mostly as the US importing more, so the increased material use doesn't show in statistics. The article also mentions increase in use of plastics. One thing I'm curious about though - how come energy use stopped being correlated with economic growth? That's new.

Just a hypothesis but I would guess it's because services and productivity improvements are driving economic growth rather than products.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#18

Post by chrisco255 »

sp332 wrote: post #4
eutropia wrote: post #2

I think the subtext here is obvious to people on HN, but isn't this because so much value is generated using electrons on increasingly efficient computer systems?

That doesn't explain crop tonnage going up while fertilizer and water use are going down.

CO2 has helped crop yields.

Re: Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy

#19

Post by danans »

I wonder what this will look like in a renewable energy world where the cost of energy on the margin drops to the the small operating cost + the principal/interest on the capital expenditure.

We might actually see a reduction in GDP in that case, especially if coupled with ever increasing production efficiency for energy consuming processes.

In that case, we might have to re-evaluate how we define "success" to be less weighted for GDP, or include the reduction in fossil fuel externalities in the definition.

Could be be best race-to-the-bottom ever.

Post reply on HN