From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:39:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.224734.3098@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.203428.25214@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>>Remember Ehrlich's intellectual catastrophe over metal prices.
>>>Do you have in mind some material throughput that you think cannot
>>>be increased without harm?  There are some, perhaps, but there are
>>>also substitutes.
>
>>especially in the "west".  Ehrlich obviously jumps the gun and is
>>too spontaneous.  Once again you are trying to disprove something
>>by isolating a single commodity.  I don't doubt that consumption
>>of any one or two commodities could be explained away.  The
>>cumulative cost of the many substitutions will grow, as will the
>>cost of dealing with their pollution.  If per capita consumption
>>continues to grow, the rates of substitution increase, and the
>>overhead of substitution, which is a non-productive cost to
>>society, grows.  This is the value of studying
>>consumption with an aggregate model.
>
>The Ehrlich bet wasn't a single commodity, it was five metals.  All
>went down in price.  As did many other commodities, including
>grains.
>
>An "aggregate model" had better be consistent with existing trends.
>These trends are towards lower prices and increased substitutability.
>If it predicts a deviation from this trend, it had better have a good
>reason for predicting it -- a reason that had better be a product of
>specific information about availability of specific resources, or
>effects of specific pollutants.  If not, the model is just a formulation
>of unsubstantiated opinion.
>
>Specific examination of the materials we mine shows that, with the
>exception of reduced carbon (fossil fuels), the minerals we consume in
>large quantities are available in almost unlimited amounts, in grades
>not much lower than ore being mined today.  We consume much more
>limestone, iron, and aluminum than we do copper, chromium or nickel.
>We spend more money and energy for these common materials as well.
>The cost of substituting for the infrequently-used materials should
>not be large.  One possible exception is phosphorus -- we'll have to
>recycle it more efficiently as lower grade deposits are mined.  Still,
>that's not that pressing, yet.
>
>To first order, the resource problem is an energy problem.
>Fortunately, it appears that several non-fossil energy sources will be
>able to take over when the point is reached that fossil fuels cannot
>be used.
>
The problem is that most analyses that find a problem with 
unsustainable throughput are not based on resource scarcity,
they are based on sink saturation.  Though the CO2/ozone example
may not be typical of sink saturation, it shows how difficult they
are to predict.

The need for substitution is also likely to be the need to find a resouce
that uses a different sink, not a resource with less scarcity.  Just how
unique are sinks to resources?  Is there a synergistic problem as more
sinks become, if not saturated, then at least somewhat scarce, in the sense
that they aren't taken for granted?

>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)