To design intelligent solutions, we must first examine our problems. Our first resource problem is that nonrenewable resources are scarcer than ever, and of lower quality. The principal nonrenewable resources are iron; ferro-alloy metals, used in combination with iron; nonferrous metals; precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum; industrial minerals, such as sulfur, asbestos, and borates; and fossil fuels. Some problems are specific to a given resource, but they have three things in common: the 3 are all distributed unevenly throughout the earth’s crust, they all cost a lot to obtain in raw form, and they are all decreasing in quality. Richer ores were the first to be exploited.
The National Commission on Materials Policy concluded in 1973 that the US faces shortages of six of the 13 basic raw materials industry depends on, and by 1985 we can expect to rely on imports for another three. Finding domestic reserves of some is improbable, and exploring for others is growing more costly.
Non-Renewables Getting Expensive to Mine
Many companies now estimate that they must spend at least $20 million to locate one deposit worth developing; and that doesn’t include the costs of evaluating the deposit and preparing to mine. At constantly growing cost, we find ores of constantly decreasing quality. In the 1920s, it was uneconomic to mine copper ore that assayed less than 1.5 percent copper. In 1970 the ore could go down to 0.5 percent copper content, and in 1975, to 0.35 percent. Industries have improved their processing techniques to accommodate lower grades of ore, but further advances in technology, while feasible, would require scales of operation that are economically unfeasible. In some places, 100,000 tons of ore are already being handled daily. The profit is marginal. To develop technologies to process greater quantities might require capital investments that even governments could not afford. Processing greater quantities of materials would, in any event, be horrifyingly destructive. Possibly the most destructive course we have contemplated so far is extracting oil from shale.
Shale Oil Requires Too Much Water, Another Scarce Resource
A full-fledged shale-oil industry providing 6.4 quadrillion Btus of energy, as envisioned in bills before Congress in December 1975, would require 417 million gallons of water daily, enough to supply the household needs of the entire Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The industry would emit sulfur dioxides equal to thirteen 1,000-megawatt power plants burning western coal with-out any emission controls, and its solid wastes would be almost nine times the total US residential and commercial solid wastes generated in 1973. Those potential wastes are mountain peaks now; no one can compute the cost of converting vast areas of our wildest mountain country into piles of rubble. We consider such drastic measures because the import marketplace is unreliable. The oil embargo of 1973 proved that. What we have not yet fully realized is that the markets for other minerals are due for a similar jolt. We rely for essential minerals and nonferrous metals on developing countries that could flex their own resource muscles any time. Charles F. Park, Dean of Mineral Sciences at Stan-ford University for more than 28 years, said: “If the present trend toward nationalization continues, the industrialized nations will have to depend more and more upon purchases in the open market; they will no longer be able to own their mines and gear production to their needs. Serious problems of supply and pricing may be ahead for the nonferrous metals.” That last sentence could as easily read “ferroalloy metals,” which are used in relatively small quantities but are essential to industry. The US has a surplus of only one of these metals, molybdenum, and we must import a large percentage of the others from less developed nations. That is not to say we should be suspicious of less developed nations. But we must expect them to begin charging prices that reflect the true value of their resources. All the earth’s resources belong to all its people. The uneven distribution means that some people have custody over some materials, some people over others. We must be careful to distribute those resources so that all people have a chance to use what they really need, no matter where they live—or when. People of all nationalities must be included in the distribution, as must generations yet un-born. When less developed nations charge high prices for raw materials, they are helping to make sure that those who buy them really need them.
Non-Renewable Metals Too Expensive for Minting Coins
As for precious metals, some economists are already trying to deemphasize the role of these metals in monetary systems in order to free them for proliferating industrial uses. We import most of these metals. Finding substitutes for the precious metals is difficult, if not impossible. The properties that make them valuable are ones that cannot be duplicated. Technological optimists frequently argue that when one material is gone another will be found to substitute for it, but squandering our goods in expectation of the alchemist’s remedy is a dangerous strategy. The alchemist cannot change lead into gold if he has run out of lead. Another aspect of the nonrenewable resource shortage we must face is that public lands are a substantial source both of fuel and nonfuel minerals. In 1974, 45 percent of US sodium, 79 percent of our potash, and 14 percent of our phosphates came from federal lands. The majority of the nation’s phosphate reserves are on federal lands. The question we must ask ourselves is how much more of our common land we are willing to chew up and shovel into the privately-owned industrial maw.
