Climate change is clearly one of the most topical and controversial aspects of public policy worldwide. John Thornton explained the implications for the UK public sector, in terms of reduced carbon emissions, in Public Finance last week (Seeing the light, February 12-18 2010).
However, while we are constantly told of the necessity of reducing carbon emissions in order to save the planet it is obvious that not everybody is listening. A recent survey in the US showed that compared to a previous survey in 2008:
- Only 50% of Americans now say they are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very worried’ about global warming, a 13-point decrease.
- The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined by 14 points, to 57%.
- The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47%.
No doubt similar trends might be found in other countries as well.
There is clearly considerable frustration among policymakers that the ‘message’ on climate change is just not getting through. In October 2009, foreign secretary David Milliband accused the general public of ‘lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change’. No doubt events like the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia and the problems of economic recession have further increased public scepticism about the need for action in relation to climate change (and the human effects on climate) such that policymakers now have a big job in convincing an increasingly sceptical public.
Looking back we may ask whether, rather than focusing on climate change and carbon emissions, governments might have focused more on another issue where there is no real doubt about what is happening and where the required solutions, if implemented, would have broadly the same effect. This issue is the fact that energy resources and various other raw materials used in everyday life are finite and will run out. Just a few facts can be quoted here:
- In 2007, BP's Statistical Review of World Energy appeared to show that the world had enough ‘proven’ oil reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, suggested that global production would peak before entering a steepening decline that will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives. According to ‘peak oil’ theory consumption will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves. In 2009, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency suggested that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.
- If we see nuclear energy as an alternative to oil it must be noted that deposits of uranium will also probably be exhausted this century depending on the growth in the use of nuclear power. Furthermore, it seems that controlled nuclear fusion is as far away as ever.
- Since the Industrial Revolution there have been concerns about the exhaustion of non-renewable mineral resources. The concerns are serious because modern society and technology depends on a variety of metals, including copper, lead, zinc, platinum, silver and gold, which are widely used but geochemically scarce. Such concerns are growing stronger today because some of the minerals that are being depleted are core to certain ‘green’ technologies (for example, the use of palladium in the catalytic converters of cars).
Some will argue that new reserves of oil and minerals will be found, but these reserves are likely to prove much more expensive to access and therefore the costs will be high. Moreover, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop the technologies to access them.
Is this certain depletion of natural resources not a stronger basis than the uncertain climate change argument for trying to change the structure of our economies and altering the way we live? Whichever way you look at it, eventually we are going to run out of these raw materials upon which our current lifestyles are based. Oil, gas, coal, copper and platinum do not just replenish themselves and once they are gone, they are gone. Let us not talk about mining the moon and the planets – we can’t even afford another manned mission to the moon.
Malcolm Prowle is professor of business performance at Nottingham Business School and a visiting professor at the Open University Business School. He can be contacted via his web page www.malcolmprowle.com
