I literally did.
Climate change wasn't invented by economists to write papers, your rebound effect is. You still didn't explain how this supposed effect helps your point.
You don't understand how increased energy efficiency helps increase household consumption?
Most people here would disagree with you, repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it more true.
I don't really care how many people agree or disagree with me. Being right isn't determined by decmoracy.
Because real economic activity requires change, and what is energy, literally change/ability to do change. What is the most dominant and useful form of energy in modern day life, electrical energy.
This isn't a rebuttal. And energy consumption isn't a proxy for economic growth either.
I already conceded that modern residential AC units are slightly more efficient, this alone is not sufficient to support your main point.
You haven't demonstrated why it's not sufficient to support my main claim. Nor am I obligated to prove my point down to the last percentage. Why should I do my work for free when I already demonstrated substantial energy savings in multiple end-use sectors? I don't. It's up to you to show me why my explanation is not sufficient. You have not done so.
You're absolutely right, that made in US sticker and packaging is definitely more valuable than the actual products from China which require much more energy to make.
Energy intensity? Why are you switching metrics now? 20% less coal has no impact on usage electricity consumption. Switching from coal to electricity is also reduction in energy intensity, but it definitely requires more electricity consumption!
You're saying we switched from coal to electricity 20 years ago? Seriously?
No, I've refuted your energy intensity point in commercial buildings previously where your source quoted,
You didn't refute it. You conceded the point. Here's what you said,
"Yes US commercial buildings cut their electrical usage per square foot by 50% since 1979, primarily due to more energy efficient lighting, but that doesn't even begin to account for the increase in GDP US experienced during that time."
Why would reductions in electrical usage per square foot account for increase in GDP? GDP doesn't increase because you use more electricity. GDP increases because you've created more economic value in a given year. Cutting electricity usage in commercial and residential use means,
A. You can use the energy more efficiently by allocating it to more uses.
B. You cut energy costs which means you can allocate your cash to either pay more to yourself or workers (increasing personal consumption or investment), or spend the money on other capital improvements (which leads back to point A).
Where do you think the saved energy goes? Disappears into thin air?
It shows nothing about energy efficiency, or per sector electricity usage.
We already addressed per sector electricity usage, and what do you think happens when energy intensity goes down, electrical generation stays flat, but GDP grows? It is indicative that efficiency has gone up.
But we don't need indicators, we already have concrete examples of how electrical usage is more efficient. From residential use, to commercial use, to even industrial use.
Or are you under the impression that refrigerators are just as efficient as they were in 1990? 2000? 2010?
How about cooling and heating (which is a major consumer of electricity in both commercial, industrial, and residential sectors)?
How about manufacturing? Mining? Infrastructure consumption and grid efficiency? Are you under the impression all of this has stayed still in the year 1980 and did not become more efficient over time?
More Advertising hype, autonomous driving vapourware especially from Model 3 is exactly the type of fake economic growth that is used to pad US GDP. You brought up a terrible example.
I brought up an excellent example because it is illustrative that you don't know what GDP is. GDP isn't what you consider "real" or whatever. If "Hype" can be monetized, it's part of GDP. In fact, marketing contributes to GDP while consuming very little electrical energy. You don't need to build a nuclear reactor to think up of an ad.
Similarly, regardless of what you feeling about "fake economic growth" is, the fact of the matter is that American cars generate more value than Chinese cars precisely because they sell for more money. Like I said before,
if that upsets you, go look at PPP adjusted numbers instead of complaining about nominal values.
Keep deluding yourself with your fake economic stats, USSA jokes are back in fashion.
You're literally this guy.
Let's touch base in 5 years when United States is still fine, and then another 10 when US survives another recession, and then 15 when United States is, miraculously around, its citizens fairly well off, and its economy still humming along.
