Those who foresee mineral shortage ignore laws of nature, economics

The prophets of doom are at it again. Harking back to the theme of “Limits to Growth” put forward in 1972 by the Club of Rome, some environmentalists have pronounced mining to be incompatible with “sustainable development.” Others have recommended minimizing or eliminating the use of non-renewable resources. There seems to be fear in some quarters that the world will somehow run out of metals and minerals.

But those who insist that we will have no resources to hand down to future generations ignore the laws of nature, economics, and technology.

All the iron, zinc, lead and other metals that have ever been mined are still in existence. Indeed, the classical laws of nature say that matter cannot be destroyed or created. If scarcity of metals ever became a problem, the extent of recycling would increase from present levels and could sustain society’s needs indefinitely.

Nature has also provided many viable mineral deposits that have yet to be discovered. As exploration methods advance, these deposits will continue to be found in times to come. Moreover, vast supplies of minerals lie in currently uneconomic resources. Improvements in technology for extraction will one day render them economic.

Provided explorationists can have access to the land surface, our industry will continue to provide mankind’s material needs far into the future.

Economists know that a dynamic system copes with impending scarcity through the price mechanism. Rising price is a signal that stimulates a lot of activity. It motivates renewed exploration efforts. It mobilizes recycling systems. It stimulates research into more efficient production methods. And it promotes substitution. All of these act to reduce or eliminate the scarcity.

Economic analysis also shows that conservation does not necessarily increase mankind’s future welfare. Conserving a resource today means foregoing economic activity. It also means foregoing the creation of other kinds of assets that can benefit future generations. As long ago as 1955 Anthony Scott noted that “. . . increased conservation of resources must mean also a reduced endowment of buildings and equipment for posterity. It is ridiculous, then, to say that conservation is a movement which has the welfare of the future particularly in mind; conservation will not necessarily increase the future’s inheritance, but merely change its composition from `capital goods’ to natural products.”

Finally, environmentalists should recognize the influence of changing technology. Improved technology will not only allow us to mine and process more cleanly in future. It will also increase the efficiency of recycling and ultimately find ways of doing without expensive or scarce materials. Substitute materials may not only satisfy the same need, they may be superior to the original material.

Remember that the first use of petroleum less than 150 years ago was as a substitute for whale oil in domestic lighting. Its use was stimulated by impending scarcity due to the feared extinction of the relevant whale. What a wealth of benefits have accrued to mankind through the use of this substitute.

Technology may even render the original resource obsolete and essentially useless. Today we do not fear that a shortage of sheet mica will shut down production of doors for wood stoves. In the future, long before uranium becomes scarce, fusion power will almost certainly be harnessed to provide a virtually inexhaustible source of energy.

Now is the time for those who understand the mineral supply process to come forward with reasoned arguments. An informed public will be stony ground for the seeds of fear.006 Dr. George Miller is president of the Mining Association of Canada.