In the latter stages of the Twentieth Century, the Environmentalist message that we are destroying our planet with man made emissions raised public awareness so that we have now reduced the amount of emissions we pour into the atmosphere.
There are some who disagree that we are responsible, the oil companies for example, but maybe it is too little too late as the globe continues to warm but while we have been concentrating on renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind, we have been merrily depleting our non-renewable natural resources and the problem with non-renewable resources, as the name implies, once they are gone they are gone for good.
We know about the dwindling supplies of oil and gas and how the easy to reach sites are running dry which means having to drill wells many miles under the sea-floor to access what's left but there are plenty of other natural resources that we take for granted that are close to exhaustion.
So just how much of these resources that are used in the manufacture of everyday items have we got left left to work with?
All the figures are based on known and estimated reserves and assume current consumption stays the same. Of course, more reserves may be discovered in the future but the figures do not take into account the rising world population which is projected to rise rapidly.
Silver: 13-29 years worth
Indium: 13-18 years worth
Palladium: 15-20 years worth
Gold: 17 -45 years worth
Tin: 17-40 years worth
Zinc: 17 - 46 years worth
Lead: 20-42 years worth
Copper: 31 -67 years worth
Uranium: 32 - 59 years worth
Nickel: 40 -90 years worth
Platinum: 56 - 360 years worth
Natural Gas: 60-70 years worth
Iron: 70-80 years worth
Cobalt: 100- 112 years worth
Tantalum 116 -120 years worth
Aluminum: 150-1000 years worth
Coal: 100-150 years worth
Phosphorus 300-400 years worth
Lithium 400-600 years worth
This is not to say that we will be completely out of indium which goes into making our flat screen televsions or palladium used in our cars catalytic converters within a couple of decades, but as we presently have no new source for it, when there is no more to be mined, we will have to make do with whatever resources we can scrape together through recycling or find new ways of creating essential things like batteries, wiring, dental crowns and plumbing.
What with the devastated environment and the depleted resources, it does make you wonder what future generations are going to make of what we have left for them to inherit.
Sources
US Energy Information Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific American
New Scientist
Science et Vie
Environmental Thinker
7 comments:
Lucy,
I have mentioned Malthus at least 3 times on your blog. Have you ever looked to see who he is or what he did? I ask because this is 100% Malthusian… Don't be a doomer!
Your sources and data overall are good. Except you are only looking at half of the equation.
Read what some of the credible futurists say:
James Canton
Kenneth Douglas Cocks
Edit Wiener
By 2030 - 2040 three new technologies come together:
- free energy
- nano engineering
- massive computing power
to allow subatomic manipulation. a pound of rock gets converted to a pound of food...
You'll really like this 2040 possibility:
- a new economic model. everything is free so all people work on Maslow levels 4 (self-esteem) and 5 (self-actualization)
Of course, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, Hussein, and Ito were all just self-actualizing… :-o
q
I didn't think i was being a doomer, (ok, on the environmment i am because it staggers me that some people STILL don't believe the earth is warming) but i am as confident as you and Malthus that new technologies will replace what we have now.
I am not so confident about the new econo0mic system though, too many people with a vested interest in continually patching up the faulty one we have controlling things.
well what new economic system would you propose? is there one that hasn't been used?
are you proposing one for the world or just for the UK?
q
I'm no economist q but it would be one with a minimum and a maximum because it seems without a maximum, things just continue to grow upwards and not outwards.
I have a vision of sand in my head for some reason so let's go with that.
Imagine pouring a bucket of sand into another bucket. The middle grows faster than the outside edges and it is only when the middle gets to a certain height that it can spread to the edges and it is only when the edges start to build that the middle can start to grow again.
So the middle can only grow so far then it has to share the sand around and develop everything around it before it can grow any further.
Sand is probably not the best example i could use i admit but i hope you see what i am saying.
so you suggest a system where the ability to earn wealth is constrained by the earning capacity of the lowest income earners?
q
I am suggesting a narrower gap between the top and bottom. How we do that is up for discussion.
lucy,
that's been the debate for 111 years.
what hasn't been tried? what's your idea?
> get the bottom to make more? in the USA we've spent $17 trillion since 1967 (ljb's great society) and the poverty rate in america hasn't lowered (though the definition of poverty would be considered wealthy for 95% of the world's population).
some people don't want to do what it takes to make more...
> constrain the top?
limiting output of the highly productive doesn't seem smart.
taking wealth from the top has been the convention since 1950's. eventually they take their abilities somewhere else...
what's your idea? or do you just have complaints - excuse me - do you just have ideals?
q
Post a Comment