4 ms·
The term you're looking for is "energy intensity". And, indeed, it's going down: https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+intensity&client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ACY
by IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
The term you're looking for is "energy intensity". And, indeed, it's going down: https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+intensity&client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ACYBGNR50jNo6wTiD-1g2urYvWpa_hwlDQ:1568939651774&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRuPjUk97kAhXKbFAKHUETD2EQ_AUIEigC&biw=1288&bih=969#imgrc=qokmnuy0gczgbM https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+intensity&client=safa...:
We're deriving more useful output with less or at least flattening (material and energy) input.
I wish more people understood economics from an economics standpoint.
- teabee89 7y agoI know about energy intensity, and yes it is going down, but not by enough to compensate the growth of consumption, which is the fallacy i'm pointing out. It has another name: Jevons paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]