Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by freeflight » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 3:34 AM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #203

freeflight wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't that really depend on what the services are based?

Driving food around in a gig economy is just another logistics jobs, driving refined metals around between different refining processes is also just another logistics job, but one with more "energy-intensive cargo".

All that tech, the cars, the infrastructure, they need those base materials you can't just "service into existence" as you can do with IP and copyrights.

Sure, all that tech needs electricity to run, but the really big emission and energy footprint they create during their creation, not during their use.

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

#262

Post by jganetsk » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

I would like to know how much of American dematerialization is just exporting materialization to China. They make our stuff, we import it. Does that count as materials consumed by Americans? Note that they mention the great reversal starting in 1970. Nixon went to China in 1972.

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

#263

Post by shartshooter » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:09 AM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #186

shawn-butler wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Farmers haven't just been adding a bit more fertilizer and water every year, Nice to believe and it is certainly what growers should be doing, but the evidence clearly indicates that they really aren't. Nitrate levels in the Mississippi are directly correlated to nitrogen use in agriculture and in the upper Mississippi River and Missouri River, flow-normalized nitrate concentration and flux have increased steadily…

You are assuming farms are the only or current main source of nitrates just because there is a correlation. Overtreated lawns and golf courses could have taken up the slack of farming usage for one. The other sectors need to be factored in for nitrate content.

Parent didn’t say it was the only source just said that rates correlated.

The fluctuation year to year may be due better growing seasons so farmers use more, but potentially so do golf courses and lawns. The usage of the others may definitely be drivers as well but agricultural use is correlated

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

#264

Post by DangitBobby » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #249

mobilefriendly wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've optimized for the wrong things-- short-term profit while making the products crappy. For example almost all of the household appliances I've purchased in the past 7 years have failed because of poor design and inferior plastic parts. My expensive oven doesn't have enough insulation around the electronic control and its failed from heat, etc etc.

More anecdotes. While you complain about your Owen, the efficient supply chains built across nations has enabled keeping costs low enough for Americans with stagnating wages to afford a reasonable standard of living.

You can cry anecdotes all you want, but planned obselesence is a highly observed and we'll documented phenomenon. A very cursory Google search will tell you as much.

I wonder if the reason wages are stagnating is that the "efficiency" is a result of skimming off the top, and removing much of the value added by removing people from the process. Maybe appliances failing as soon as the warranty expires introduces market externalities that someone will dearly pay for some day...

Or maybe we are paying for it today! Have you ever heard of the [broken window fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)? Basically, someone may claim that breaking windows increases spending on window repairs, which is a net benefit to the economy. This, of course, ignores what could have been bought had the window not been broken to begin with.

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

#265

Post by kls » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:18 AM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #152

Capitalism at work, saving the environment. Increasing profits necessitates reducing one's demand for supply. Using less steel, paper, fertilizer, and energy to achieve same/better results while tautologically using less resources is indeed good all around (mostly).

While I don't disagree that capitalism is at work. It is almost a given that the reduction in steel is due to auto manufactures and many other industries have moved to aluminum or composite materials. Neither one of them offers a great environmental or energy savings over steel.

Paper is most likely digitization which again just transfers the energy use into computing every time the document is viewed and is almost certainly a net negative in relation to energy consumption.

Fertilizer I don't know but a half ass guess would be GMO's. As they are able to target traits that allow them to use less fertilizer and pesticides to produce the same amount of crop yield.

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

#266

Post by prawn » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #133

lkrubner wrote: post #32

Wages have been mostly flat, so consumers have no extra money to engage in additional buying. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the top 1% of the income distribution have absorbed 125% of productivity gains. This is the reverse of what we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s when strong labor unions were able to win 110% of productivity for workers, so that the share of national income going to labor increased. Now…

Well... just last night, I was planning a trip. There was a place I could see on Google Maps (satellite view) that looked interesting, but it wasn't clear that I could turn onto it (there might be a barrier or an elevation difference). But Google Street View made it clear that I could turn onto this little dirt road in the middle of nowhere. For free. That isn't wage growth. And yet, I am better off for being able to…

Would the computer or mobile phone used to see that satellite map be a new category of device if we're comparing to 30+ years ago? I remember when I first moved out of home that there were council rates, water, electricity and gas bills. Optionally, phone too. Now there's internet, 2x mobile phone plans (more if you have teenagers), Netflix, Stan, etc.

A lot of people are upgrading phones or laptops every few years too.

The tech is great, but it isn't always free.

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

#267

Post by KorematsuFred » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:43 AM UTC

pjmorris wrote: post #96

Someone I know posted a picture of an empty rolodex today, saying that they'd moved their friends to 'the cloud.' I'm sure you can look at your phone apps and see other things that would've been physical objects ten or twenty years ago. So, that's one way material use has, at least, shifted. There are two other trends that worry me more. One is visible in the freezer section at the grocery store; a "half-gallon" of i…

> We've now had at least two generations of spreadsheet-wielding MBA's optimizing corporate costs to reduce what is spent on materials and labor. Evidence of their success is showing up across the economy, and politics, and society at large.

Or on other hand we are enjoying more from life with less resources. Not only it helps more companies to be more profitable thus keeping more people employed, it also does a great service to the planet and the future as we continue to reduce our footprint.

I agree with your point about the loan paybacks which of course is off topic.

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

#268

Post by ggm » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:51 AM UTC

Moving an economy from real things to services and ideas begs many questions, not the least of which is "what does price even mean" because the cost/price nexus had some meaning with real goods, but has almost no meaning with services and ideas.

A perfect cure for age related death is worth so much, it probably has undefined value. A TV show as a bitstream is worth nothing (bits ephemerally have no value), can be infinitely copied, and yet IPR law defines its value as a function of the lock on the disney vault.

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

#269

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #214

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being way over dramatic. 99% of the time the unit makes sense and is the same for comparable products.

That may be your experience based on what you shop for and where you do it. America is way behind Europe on this. 99% of the time I go to Safeway, I have to bring out my calculator because the reference volume/weight is different from the other items on the same shelf.

Interesting, yeah the Safeways I've been to have all had price per ounce pretty consistently.

What is a bit irritating is having to recalculate when items are discounted.

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

#270

Post by supermatt » Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

panpanna wrote: post #164

benibela wrote: post #160

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.

Its unit price as required by directive 98/6/EC.

A unit is how the product is customarily sold (singly) in the member state.

So for items typically sold as 500g in Germany, all items of that type in Germany would be labelled with 500g as the unit size for comparison. That same product may typically be sold in the UK as 1kg, so in the UK they would use 1kg.