Message-ID: <s324405e.055@crs.loc.gov> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:07:34 -0500 From: Jonathan Sanford <mailto:JSANFORD@CRS.LOC.GOV> Subject: Re: UNITED NATIONS: Third World Lacks C -Reply To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Dear Jay--The IPS piece on Third World energy needs was badly flawed. First, as I noted in my other message, it ignores alternative methods for production. Second, it doesn't tell us whether the future production is in real or nominal dollars. If everything goes up in price, then a particular quantity of energy will have a higher cost--as will everything the country produces to pay for it. So cost and income will balance. Third, it presumes that developing countries cannot find the sufficient additional export income to pay for a real increase in energy costs. Fourth, it doesn't explore the potential benefits of increased efficiency. The UN analysis seems to assume that current usage rates will continue through the year 2020. Environmental groups have been arguing for that increased efficiency is not necessarily incompatible with growth.
Your Limits of Growth scenerio is also flawed. First, it seems to assume that current use patterns will continue if supply becomes short. Most people will use a cheaper substitute in such situations, but the scenerios don't take that into account. Second, according to past predictions, we've been running out of petroleum, natural gas, and vital ores for a century. Actually, more stuff keeps gettin found and we learn how to extract more from old "exhausted" sources. Twenty years ago, we were told we'd be out of petroleum before the end of the century. Gasoline prices are lower today (on a real basis) than they were when I was in high school back in the Jurassic period. The price of 25 cents a gallon back then is worth a lot more than $1.25 today! Obviously, we do have a problem with forest depletion. I think that's an exception, though, since there is little reason to believe that new forests lie undiscovered out there somewhere. But most raw materials are not out where we can see them.
I know you avidly desire evidence of an inevitable and upcoming collapse of the world economy. But I think there are too many ways around the supposed $300 billion shortfall predicted by the UNDP in the IPS article. Lets not start the whole "unavoidable collapse" business once again.
Jon Sanford