• nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

    • Patches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.

            • Hobo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • s_i_m_s@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year 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.

    • s_s@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • VirginMojito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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?