And probably both of these can be explained largely by the fact that most of the energy intensive production happens now in Asia.

▲

tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most energy consumption is for transportation and housing.

The US trade deficit with the rest of the world is only about 3% of gdp, that doesn’t buy much in the way of emissions.

	▲	wahern a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's true for states like California and perhaps the US generally, but in states like Texas industry uses half of all energy. ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=66224) Likewise for South Korea and China where over half is for industry. This is precisely because most states exported their heavy industry, both overseas and to states like Texas, which has many chemical plants and similar energy-intensive industry.
	▲	BobbyTables2 a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		How is Europe similar then? I’d expect the US spends vastly more energy on transportation (individual vehicles) and housing (larger, more AC, etc)
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	tuatoru a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Most energy consumption is for transportation and housing. Of course it is, if you have offshored energy-intensive industries.

▲

bluGill 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They used and installed a fair amount of renewable energy since then. Plus, the similar efficiency gains in the EU and the article have also happened in the US. While there hasn't been government encouragement directly, there have been a lot of things that cause it to happen anyway.

▲

vlovich123 2 days ago | parent [-]

Installing renewable energy doesn’t change the amount of energy required. The shift to Asia is almost certainly the bulk of it

▲

bluGill 2 days ago | parent [-]

It changes the amount of oil used which is the more important consultation

	▲	vlovich123 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which is irrelevant to the article which talks about the amount of energy used.

▲

NooneAtAll3 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

everyone switched from manufacturing to service jobs

▲

tonyedgecombe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Although manufacturing output has remained stable.

	▲	phil21 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Only if you use dollar value output as some weird substitute for actually making things.

▲

david38 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Manufacturing is brutal at efficiency. Every generation they aggressively cut material use and process energy usage.

Look at any device that had a lot of metal years ago.

The second part is phones have replaced a lot of people’s “stuff”. Young people prefer phones to cars even.

You can loads of “stuff” on your phone and it’s just software.

▲

sellmesoap a day ago | parent | next [-]

I can spend more on a phone then I did on my last car, although I pay half my car's purchase price every year I pay for insurance so I shouldn't be bragging!

▲

ahartmetz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Young people prefer phones to cars even

I mean, I probably do, too. I certainly use my phone much more often (I live in Berlin). But please, can we not make cars smartphones on wheels? I don't want to throw away my car after five years because the software is outdated, the CPU has become too weak and the battery is worn out. (Not a dig against electric cars, their batteries usually last much longer)

▲

xethos 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I get your point, and adore my Fiero, but most software updates to cellphones are required because they're networked.

Cars don't have to be, nor (IMO) should be internet-connected. So if the CPU in the infotainment system was sufficient at launch, and there's no reason to update the (not-internet-connected) software, then the CPU will continue to be sufficient, and the software being out of date is irrelevant.

Not to defend the modern tablet-on-dash, internet-connected, reports-your-sexual-preference "car", just to point out that the transition to digital isn't, by itself, bad

▲

boredatoms 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Check out the Slate truck/suv

	▲	ahartmetz a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'd be more interested in a car, the kind that people had before they went mad. Smaller frontal area, lower center of gravity, lighter weight. More economic, faster, more fun to drive. I don't want to sit high neither, lower is more fun.