Read on Twitter
'Material Footprint' seems to me a bad metric for our impact on the environment.
Some resource use is much more harmful and to treat a kg of sand just like a kg of coal is a terrible idea.
To simply sum up their weight hides that resource use that has the worst impact.
Some resource use is much more harmful and to treat a kg of sand just like a kg of coal is a terrible idea.
To simply sum up their weight hides that resource use that has the worst impact.
In many databases on ‘material footprint’ the actual calculation is not very transparent. Often I can’t find it at all.
The authors of this paper …https://journalofeconomicstructures.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40008-016-0048-5 make it admirably clear.
In the Appendix material you can see that I’m not making the coal=sand example up.
The authors of this paper …https://journalofeconomicstructures.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40008-016-0048-5 make it admirably clear.
In the Appendix material you can see that I’m not making the coal=sand example up.
Apparently that example of declining sand use offsetting increased fossil fuel use is so absurd that people think I made it up.
I didn't. It's right in that paper in Table 1.
I didn't. It's right in that paper in Table 1.
