Sunday, January 30, 2005
Good news on natural resources
On January 22nd, the Economist (an essential read for anyone except left-wingers who can't bear to admit that free markets work better than centrally planned economies) published a survey of Corporate Social Responsiblity. This is a typically cool and balanced look at the phenomenon (or fashion) which has become an essential part of doing business for many large companies. However, hidden in there is an interesting summary of the situation regarding natural resources:
"Natural resources are not running out, if you measure effective supply in relation to demand. The reason is that scarcity raises prices, which spurs innovation: new sources are found, the efficiency of extraction goes up, existing supplies are used more economically, and substitutes are invented. In 1970, global reserves of copper were estimated at 280m tonnes; during the next 30 years about 270m tonnes were consumed. Where did estimated reserves of copper stand at the turn of the century? Not at 10m tonnes, but at 340m. Available supplies have surged, and, it so happens, demand per unit of economic activity has been falling: copper is being replaced in many of its main industrial applications by other materials (notably, fibre-optic cable instead of copper wire for telecommunications).
Copper, therefore, is unlikely ever to run out—and if it did, in some very distant future, it would be unlikely by then to matter. The same is true for other key minerals. Reserves of bauxite in 1970 were 5.3 billion tonnes; the amount consumed between 1970 and 2000 was around 3 billion tonnes; reserves by the end of the century stood at 25 billion tonnes. Or take energy. Oil reserves in 1970: 580 billion barrels. Oil consumed between 1970 and the turn of the century: 690 billion barrels. Oil reserves in 2000: 1,050 billion barrels. And so on."
Technically, these resources are limited, but the reality is somewhat different. This really casts a lot of doubt on much of the environmentalist credo.
The full survey can be found at the link (paid registration required, bit it's well worth it!).
"Natural resources are not running out, if you measure effective supply in relation to demand. The reason is that scarcity raises prices, which spurs innovation: new sources are found, the efficiency of extraction goes up, existing supplies are used more economically, and substitutes are invented. In 1970, global reserves of copper were estimated at 280m tonnes; during the next 30 years about 270m tonnes were consumed. Where did estimated reserves of copper stand at the turn of the century? Not at 10m tonnes, but at 340m. Available supplies have surged, and, it so happens, demand per unit of economic activity has been falling: copper is being replaced in many of its main industrial applications by other materials (notably, fibre-optic cable instead of copper wire for telecommunications).
Copper, therefore, is unlikely ever to run out—and if it did, in some very distant future, it would be unlikely by then to matter. The same is true for other key minerals. Reserves of bauxite in 1970 were 5.3 billion tonnes; the amount consumed between 1970 and 2000 was around 3 billion tonnes; reserves by the end of the century stood at 25 billion tonnes. Or take energy. Oil reserves in 1970: 580 billion barrels. Oil consumed between 1970 and the turn of the century: 690 billion barrels. Oil reserves in 2000: 1,050 billion barrels. And so on."
Technically, these resources are limited, but the reality is somewhat different. This really casts a lot of doubt on much of the environmentalist credo.
The full survey can be found at the link (paid registration required, bit it's well worth it!).
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
We've only got ten years left
A further report, published by the International Climate Change Taskforce aims to influence the G8 to take action to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere below 400 ppm. Given that the current level is 380 ppm, they reckon that we have ten years to take action to achieve this. If not, we're all doomed to suffer the effects of uncontrolled global warming (average temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees C). The Taskforce is a front for the Institute of Public Policy Research ("the UK's leading progressive thinktank"), joined by the Center for American Progress and the Australia Institute (whoever they may be).
According to Alex Kirby's report "A leading climate scientist has told the BBC he thinks temperatures may be higher than 2C some time this century. " A pretty safe assumption, I would have thought!
According to Alex Kirby's report "A leading climate scientist has told the BBC he thinks temperatures may be higher than 2C some time this century. " A pretty safe assumption, I would have thought!
Friday, January 21, 2005
More gloom from the Hadley Centre
According to a piece on the BBC news website today: "The amount of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from the rivers that feed it is increasing, UK scientists report.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they say the increase is caused in part by human activities and is an early sign of climate change.
The rise in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean could change the global distribution of water, the team says.
It could also affect the balance of the climate system itself and even possibly alter the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
The team is from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the UK Met Office. " (For the full story, follow the link below).
It is now received wisdom that Mankind's effect on the planet is entirely negative, and that our latest sin is to change the global climate. Let's look at the facts:
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they say the increase is caused in part by human activities and is an early sign of climate change.
The rise in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean could change the global distribution of water, the team says.
It could also affect the balance of the climate system itself and even possibly alter the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
The team is from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the UK Met Office. " (For the full story, follow the link below).
It is now received wisdom that Mankind's effect on the planet is entirely negative, and that our latest sin is to change the global climate. Let's look at the facts:
- Climate is always changing, and there have certainly been some significant changes in our lifetimes: earlier Springs, for example.
- Carbon dioxide levels are undisputably higher now than in pre-industrial times, and the rate of use of fossil fuels must have been a major contributor to this.
- Carbon dioxide is not the major contributor to the greenhouse effect: there is vastly more water vapour in the atmosphere, the effect of which is overwhelming, and methane (another trace gas) also has a greater influence. The concern about carbon dioxide is because it has a much longer residence time in the atmosphere (several decades) and therefore its effect might only be apparent in the longer term.
- Despite the statements from the IPCC and other official sources, the science of climate change is uncertain: we really don't understand the system and can only model effects in a mechanistic way. In the last thousand years or so, there have been several well-documented warm and cold periods. These may have been influenced by Man's activities (eg clearing of forests) but were certainly not due to industrial emissions.
- We really don't know the consequences of trying to reduce our emissions drastically. It may make no difference to the current changes; it may actually bring forward the next glaciation.
In the meantime, rather than put growth at risk by pursuing Kyoto goals (which very few countries will meet) there are a number of global problems where activity now could make a real difference to people's lives: providing fresh water, increasing food security, fighting disease, to name but three. And healthy, well-fed people can lift themselves out of poverty and adapt to changes in climate far better. After all, Mankind has become the dominant species by being more adaptable than the competition.
But this is not a fashionable view: most people seem to prefer (to a greater or lesser degree) to feel the guilt of despoiling the Earth. I seem to be out of step. Is anyone else?
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Introduction
This is a new blog, designed to help me get things off my chest and reduce my blood pressure. And, as it develops, it may be useful to others: who knows? As I'm new to blogging, readers will have to bear with me, but why not stay with this and see what develops.
As a taste of my views, you might want to check out a recent opinion piece on the More Than Science website, taking nanotechnology as a starting point (click on the link below). Comments welcomed!
As a taste of my views, you might want to check out a recent opinion piece on the More Than Science website, taking nanotechnology as a starting point (click on the link below). Comments welcomed!
