In the Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley has an interesting article about the the claims that we will run out of “X”, except that human ingenuity always seems to grasp this and then “Y” comes along.
The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out
Ecologists worry that the world’s resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through such limits again and again
How many times have you heard that we humans are “using up” the world’s resources, “running out” of oil, “reaching the limits” of the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with pollution or “approaching the carrying capacity” of the land’s ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuff—metals, oil, clean air, land—and that we risk exhausting it through our consumption.
“We are using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably produce, and unless we change course, that number will grow fast—by 2030, even two planets will not be enough,” says Jim Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (formerly the World Wildlife Fund).
But here’s a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this “niche construction”—that people (and indeed some other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way.
Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying on nature’s bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty.Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter’s tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can’t seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.
Full story here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304279904579517862612287156?mg=reno64-wsj
dbstealey says:
April 29, 2014 at 6:14 pm
“No, those are not “facts”. They are your assertions. I do not agree with them. There is nothing more important than safety in building a new reactor.”
…
If safety is more important, then instead of extending the license of a 40 year old reactor to 60 years, why don’t they replace it with a new reactor?
“Wrong again. But why bother working on researching facts”
Tell us what part of the “science” has changed? I’ll tell you what parts of “engineering” have changed.
Here is a listing of the accidents at US nuclear plants. Note the column with “fatalities”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States#List_of_accidents_and_incidents
chuck,
Fear is a powerful emotion, and it rules Luddite thinking.
Your ‘fatalities’ are routine accidents like heavy equipment falling on workers, electrocution, etc. They are industrial accidents. They are not caused by radiation. There are no reactors blowing up and spreading radioactivity. So that argument fails.
Fearful people will cherry-pick anything that supports their belief system. At bottom you are simply afraid of the black cat under your bed. You lay in the dark, worrying about the cat. You are certain that you can hear it breathing. But when you get up and turn on the light and look under the bed… there is no cat.
Same thing with your imaginary nuclear disasters.
[PS: no need to shout. Instead of bold, use italics. TIA.]
dbstealey says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:42 am
” I’m still waiting for you to name one person killed by a nuclear power plant in the U.S.”
Check out the accident that occurred on July 24, 1964, you will find that was caused by radiation.
chuck,
You found one? One?
Good, I won’t even ask for a link. I don’t care, because nuke plants are demonstrably safer than just about any other kind of power plant.
I suppose that one ((1)) fatality is enough to keep you terrified of an excellent power source. Instead, I suppose you prefer windmills.
dbstealey says:
April 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm
I’m still waiting for you to name one person killed by a nuclear power plant in the U.S.”
All I can say is YOU ASKED FOR IT
Mr dbstealey
Do you want to discuss the number of deaths related to nuclear research instead of commercial power plants?
chuck says:
Do you want to discuss the number of deaths related to nuclear research instead of commercial power plants?
No.