Resource use matters, but material footprints are a poor way to measure it

The article discusses the limitations of using material footprints as a metric to measure resource use. While material footprints sum up the weight of all resources used in an economy, they fail to consider the scarcity, environmental impact, or socioeconomic consequences of different materials. The article argues that specific mineral datasets are more effective in understanding resource sustainability and environmental impacts. It also highlights that sectors like housing and food have the biggest impact on material footprints, with non-metallic minerals and biomass dominating resource consumption. The article suggests that focusing on reducing the use of certain materials, such as fossil fuels and specific metal ores, would be more effective in addressing resource constraints and environmental impacts than solely relying on material footprints.