[chneu]

You're right on target with the over consumption line.

AI is a drop in the bucket compared to the insanely unnecessary nonsense that people buy because they just want more crap.

Anyone who is talking about how much energy AI uses should be looking at themselves and their communities as well. Change begins with small decisions/actions and americans have been convinced that small decisions/actions don't make a difference because it's an easy excuse to do nothing.

There are a handful of very simple things people can do that would make a huge difference, such as reducing food waste/red meat consumption, less air travel, using less energy to power their homes, buying less stuff, using less plastic(buy glass/metal stuff) and driving less. All those things can reduce an individual's consumption by over 50%(red meat can make up nearly 30% of that reduction). But nobody wants to do these things because we're told it's the corporations/rich people's fault. Americans are BY FAR the heaviest consumers in the world and we have all the excuses in the world for why we think it's okay.

[soramimo]

FWIW, the energy use per capita in the USA (and other western countries) is lower than in the 1970's and has been steady/declining [1].

Granted, some of the energy intensive manufacturing was outsourced to China and other places, but then again there's also an increase in efficiency standards (e.g. vehicles, heating etc).

CO2 emissions per capita in Western countries (including the US) have peaked in the 1970s and are now roughly on pre-WW2 levels [2].

(note that I'm onboard with reducing waste etc, but the claim that consumption drives energy use is somewhat misleading)

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

[chneu]

Those graphs are still damning for Americans and our extreme consumption.

[nsonha]

> using less plastic(buy glass/metal stuff)

How about wooden/organic material? Glass and metal aren't eco friendly either, not even comparing to plastic.

My new epiphany is no durable material if I don't really need it.

[chneu]

>Glass and metal aren't eco friendly either, not even comparing to plastic.

They require remelting which is energy intensive but it's still way better than plastic. This is more of a "how is the energy created" problem and not really glass/metal's fault.

Sand mining is an issue but glass recycling is the goal, which reduces virgin sand use. Lots of industries use way more sand than glass production anyway. Metal production isn't great either but the goal is RECYCLING, not mining all new material.

Remember that plastic recycling is mostly a myth. Especially in consumer goods. Double especially in the US where basically no consumer plastic is recycled, it's mostly from industry.

There's a reason you can get cash for glass/metal at recyclers. Can't do that with plastic.

I really don't understand how recycled glass/metal are anywhere near as bad as plastic. You can use them forever whereas plastic breaks down quickly. This kind of sounds like misinformation put out to muddy the waters and give people an excuse to use more plastic.

Wood is fine but expensive/time consuming. If someone wants to use all wooden stuff great, but most folks aren't doing that so it's a moot point.

[nsonha]

Why does that have to be a pro-plastic misinformation?

Many of the same reasons that makes recyling plastic a myth, make recycling a myth for many materials. Unless you're disposing perfectly good stuff, most of glass will end up being broken glass in landfill. I really don't see how those broken pieces is gonna be picked up for recycling, they're gonna be in the environment for MUCH longer than plastic.