Live data from Hacker News

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

reason.com

201–210 of 316 posts

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

#201

From the article: It suggests that economic growth in a mature economy does not necessarily increase the pressure on the world's reserves of natural resources and on its physical environment. Jesse Asubel has been looking at "dematerialization" for a long time[1] but it has only been relatively recently, now with a couple of decades of additional data to look at, that it is getting the attention I think it deserves.…

Buckminster Fuller made a similar observation or prediction even earlier, in the late 1930s. He called it ephemeralization, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization , the idea that increasing technological efficiency will allow us to do evermore with less. A possible counter-acting force is Jevon's paradox (a generalized economic form of Wirth's Law) but the linked empirical result suggests ephemeralization is…

The Jevons Paradox [1] is named a "paradox" as it is an unusual, apparently contradictory outcome. It can be considered a special case of the rebound effect [2] where the rebound is greater than 100%. Unlike rebound effects in general, a Jevons Paradox is not a routine outcome of any new technological efficiency gain. It is something that needs to be observed from data rather than assumed.

In my experience, the Jevons Paradox seems to be more widely brandished than understood in internet debates about energy and resources [3]. If Alice claims e.g. that American electricity production is getting more efficient, Bob may "refute" her point by citing the Jevons Paradox without mustering evidence that the Jevons Paradox applies to recent trends in American electricity consumption.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)

[3] Your comment did not misuse the Jevons Paradox. You noted that ephemeralization seems to be winning.

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

#202

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.

Afaik energy use being correlated with economic growth depends on how much of the economy is based on energy-intensive industries, like manufacturing. The US, as many other developed countries, has been shifting out of manufacturing economies to service economies for a while now. Case in point: Nothing at Disney stipulates a correlation between their "economic output" and their energy consumption. Meanwhile, a steel/…

> Case in point: Nothing at Disney stipulates a correlation between their "economic output" and their energy consumption.

Not convinced. Whether movie creation or Disneyland, it all seems O(n) to energy use, except the constant factor is much smaller than for a steel plant, so we don't notice the correlation yet. Computers need electricity, man-hours ultimately have an energy cost, you need space and energy to entertain all the Disneyland visitors, etc.

I think I've found the answer to my question in other comments, though. The article focuses on US economy, but given the scale of imports, it doesn't really make sense to treat US economy in isolation. Just like I suspect the "dematerialization" is an artifact of not counting inputs to outsourced manufacturing of imported goods, I now suspect the decorrelation of energy use and economic growth is just an artifact of not counting the energy embodied in imported goods.

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

#203

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.

Afaik energy use being correlated with economic growth depends on how much of the economy is based on energy-intensive industries, like manufacturing. The US, as many other developed countries, has been shifting out of manufacturing economies to service economies for a while now. Case in point: Nothing at Disney stipulates a correlation between their "economic output" and their energy consumption. Meanwhile, a steel/…

As I understand it, a service-based economy is more energy-intensive. A service based economy requires a pre-existing industrial base; services activity are actually managing actual stuff streams, and streams about these streams. Plus, you need heating, transportation, internet etc for all of your office workers, which requires energy.

The absence of obvious correlation doesn't remove the need. Just like there would be no advanced economy without a working agricultural infrastructure to provide food to everyone...

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

#204
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but in general we are wasting tons of precious resources building "disposable" devices like cell phones that are used for only 2 years to do tasks that have little economic value. This is wrong in two ways. 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, where people like me buy them for a sma…

> 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, Increasingly less so. On one side, you have cheap subscription plans that bundle usable (not too decent) phones, on the other hand, phone life is shortened by a combination of planned obsolescence, software bloat, and lack of security updates. S…

I have a stable of Android devices for compatibility testing. All of the handsets are still working, even the 2014 ones. But I don't expect you to treat my anecdotes as data!

Report: "Strategy Analytics: Average U.S. Smartphone Upgrade Cycle Now 33 Months"

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics...

Smartphone upgrade cycles have been steadily lengthening for years, which has important implications for smartphone vendors and wireless carriers alike. Slowing unit sales have led companies like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) to pivot toward subscription services in an effort to better monetize all of the devices that are already out there. ...

The slowing replacement cycle makes sense to me, for basically the same reasons that I don't upgrade my PCs nearly as fast as I did in the 1990s. The improvements aren't as dramatic from model to model or year to year. I'll keep using my current phone as long as it works, which looks to easily be 4+ years.

If phone manufacturers are deliberately trying to drive shorter replacement cycles, it's not working, at least not in the American market.

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

#205
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of it is due to sticky prices. Customers don't like seeing the number on the label go up, so the companies do what they can to keep the product quality the same at the same price point, which results in reduced quantity. The alternative is to reduce quality, which usually results in a death spiral.

I think consumers would be more willing to see the number on the label go up if they saw the number on their paychecks go up. Wages in the US peaked about 1968, a number of forces have been working to reengineer that deal ever since. Similar to your point, executives don't like seeing the number on their costs go up. Isn't it possible that quality could take a hit in how the executive chooses to reduce costs?

Nominal wages in the US have most certainly gone up since 1968 a great deal, this much is really obvious. You might be talking about real wages, but those are irrelevant when we talk about sticky prices, because people don't accurately understand the changes in their real wages over time (and those have also gone up, though not as much as some people would expect).

Similar to your point, executives don't like seeing the number on their costs go up.

Yes, but they do go up, so they try to exploit quirk of human psychology to reduce the impact of rising costs on consumers.

Isn't it possible that quality could take a hit in how the executive chooses to reduce costs?

It sure is possible, and no doubt happens with lots of products across the board. Usually, it is wrong move, and the company eventually succumbs to competitors.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Cellphones don't just last 2 years; lots of people have older models. Sure, a bunch of people get rid of theirs after 2 years, but then they go to the secondhand market, Increasingly less so. On one side, you have cheap subscription plans that bundle usable (not too decent) phones, on the other hand, phone life is shortened by a combination of planned obsolescence, software bloat, and lack of security updates. S…

I have a stable of Android devices for compatibility testing. All of the handsets are still working, even the 2014 ones. But I don't expect you to treat my anecdotes as data! Report: "Strategy Analytics: Average U.S. Smartphone Upgrade Cycle Now 33 Months" https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/23/strategy-analytics... Smartphone upgrade cycles have been steadily lengthening for years, which has important implication…

I have anecdotes to your anecdotes. Seen or used lots of Android devices that "wear down" under day-to-day use. The battery goes first, but flash degradation seems to be a thing too. And of course software bloat.

The report looks interesting, and switching to service model seems like a plausible explanation.

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

#207
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If technological efficiency had any effect on lowering overall consumption, we would see that now. But we don't. Consumption in real terms is increasing at an exponential rate. This is called The Great Acceleration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration Turns out people use the efficiency of technology to just consume more. Your internet goods and services might increase consumption somewhere else. Some of…

on efficiency increasing net consumption, this is called Jevon’s Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Thanks! I knew there was a name for it but.couldn't remember.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do that in the EU/Germany, too €/item, €/100g, €/1kg are all common

In 99% this is _not_ a EU thing. Maybe some German law?? Or just common practice in Germany? Edit: I think I confused your response with parent. I understand price/kg is a thing although I didn't knew it was mandated by law. What I don't understand is being forced to use some odd unit like price per 500g.

I do not remember ever seeing price per 500g

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

#209

It really only makes sense to understand the world economy as a whole. On this scale, consumption (e.g. steel production or oil consumption) continue to grow [1,2]. Americans are in the fortunate position of selling services (e.g. finance, advertising, information management) and consuming finished products from the rest of the world, but the American economy should not be considered a closed system. [1] https://en.w…

Indeed, or to be a bit cute about it: "Does the 'America' graph include the 'China' part of America?"

Not that China is part of America. More like the two are squabbling lovers locked in an embrace so tight that it's literally "'til death do us part."

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the EU, shops are required to display the price per , i. e. all coffees have a (usually smaller, but readable) Euro/500g price. Grocery stores in the US do this, but it's not something you necessarily see in food service shops.

> Grocery stores in the US do this, but it's not something you necessarily see in food service shops. They do an absolute shit job of it, because there are no standards or regulations. Most times I see this, similar items next to each other on the shelf are using different "standard" units making comparison impossible (e.g. price per ounce vs. price per piece). I've even seen two sizes of the same brand/product use d…

Luckily, my local Publix that I shop at does it quite well.
Post reply on HN