Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
assumed that prices attribute values, sway opinion and regulate human behaviour
i.e. “an object's or a service's value is that which is paid for it”. This statement runs
parallel with the usual ignorance of the physical context (for instance, the degree
of scarcity of a certain natural resource). Despite this, prices such as those of raw
materials and other commodities continue to be registered instantly on the global
stock exchange with the aim of getting a would-be-precise state of world economy.
Besides, the metric of price, money, fluctuates with market whims such as the “latest
must have accessory”. This is why Physics struggles to use and manage this vast
information to build a solid theory on resources scarcity and depletion.
Finally, economists consider cost as the sacrifice of resources required to produce
something else. The concept of average cost is consequently born as a pure account-
ability technique. Hence, it can be objectified by adding all the resources that come
into play. It originates from actual measurements such as the amount of resources
entering the production process. If the resources entered are derived from another
production process one can also assess their costs. This process can continue until
the end of the chain, i.e. until the extraction from or disposal back into Nature.
This is where humankind radically turns a blind eye to how many resources are
needed to generate the natural goods that are taken freely without a second glance.
Consequently, as people pay people and not Nature for virgin materials, cost and
price are often and mistakenly used interchangeably when they are in fact not the
same.
There are thus at least two alternatives for the assessment of resources. The most
frequently used assigns prices to resources through their production costs. As stated
previously, prices depend on market variations and lack objectivity. An alternative
way, as used in this topic, is to assign a physical value to mineral resources. In any
case, any assessment of objectivity with regards to production costs is dependent
on the objectivity of the costs assigned to the consumed resources. Even though
this concept of cost is closer to the reality of physical facts, in practical terms cost
is calculated from a blend of physical and economic magnitudes.
In what follows, a description of the economists', accountants' and natural sci-
entists' view concerning the assessment of natural capital is undertaken.
2.4 The economists' view
Techno-optimism has deeply divided scholars and subsequent public policies con-
cerning the management of natural capital. Tilton (1996) identified two opposing
schools of thought: those who consider the Earth plentiful from a mineral and
energy perspective and those who perceive a fixed stock of non-renewable resources
on the Earth that must be adequately managed. The school of the “plentiful” is
predominately constituted by mainstream economists that consider that “with the
help of market incentives, appropriate public policies and new technology one can
amply provide for society's needs for the indefinite future”. For those adhering to
Search WWH ::
Custom Search