• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    50
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I don’t remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.

    • @raginghummus
      link
      English
      338 months ago

      Yes! It’s called Jevons paradox

    • @CheeseNoodle
      link
      English
      198 months ago

      This isn’t an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        68 months ago

        Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver’s license is required is dumb.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Could you elaborate? Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      178 months ago

      I can confirm. In 2023 despite having LED lightbulbs - we consume 7 more watts per hour per lightbulb than the average lightbulb did in 1546.

      • @RagingRobot
        link
        English
        128 months ago

        The lights back then probably weren’t very bright were they?

        • @AA5B
          link
          English
          78 months ago

          But they used very little electricity, almost none

          • @Gabu
            link
            English
            38 months ago

            They also did jack shit for illumination, so…

            • @Hobo
              link
              English
              08 months ago

              The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that’s for sure.

              • @s_i_m_s
                link
                English
                28 months ago

                Yeah considering they didn’t discover electricity until the 1700s then they didn’t even invent one that lasted long enough to be practical until 1879.

                • @Hobo
                  link
                  English
                  3
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  That’s the joke isn’t it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don’t think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      118 months ago

      Vacuum cleaners are the classic example, IMO.

      When introduced, they were supposed to make cleaning rugs take less time, freeing time and effort for other activities, but instead housewives just cleaned their rugs more often.

      • BombOmOm
        link
        English
        08 months ago

        Would means rugs are quite a bit cleaner now, so I would say the vacuum did its job.

    • @VirginMojito
      link
      English
      58 months ago

      led comes to mind here with this explanation. extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power. also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        English
        18 months ago

        also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.

        Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?

    • @Takumidesh
      link
      English
      58 months ago

      Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.