3 ms·

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,

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/aluminum plant in China will have a pretty direct correlation between economic output and energy input.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> 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.
wazoox 7y ago
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...
- freeflight 7y ago
  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.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> 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.

wazoox 7y ago

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...

freeflight 7y ago
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.