P3D Re: Floating 3D Revised

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:06:57 -0700
>From: john bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: Floating 3D Revised

>Greg E. writes:
>>   Since helium is plentiful enough that
>> restaraunts give it away for free (in a
>> rubber container) I wouldn't worry about
>> it.

>That's because the present usage and hence 
>value are low.  I was talking about future 
>value.  Sort of like oil - when we get done
>burning it up in our cars, the price of 
>plastic will get outrageous because oil is
>the cheap feeder stock for plastic.  

An accountant might argue that if you take the money you save now by
burning cheap oil as compared to some more expensive source, and invest
that money, then you'll have enough to easily afford the expensive plastic
of the future. :-)

My opinion is that the main problems arise when a given resource
is readily locatable (*all* of it can be easily found), and when it's very
easy to obtain, up to the point where there isn't any more of it. If no
forethought is given, the sudden disappearance of a resource can cause major
disruption of the economy. My personal gripe is tuna - they're a wonderful
renewable food source, but they're being heavily overfished - those people
who *routinely* eat tuna are sacrificing a long-term benefit for a short-term
convenience. Many other forms of sea life are in a similar situation.
Shrimping causes great devastation to other species.

I suspect that won't happen so much with oil. At any given time, we don't
know where *all* the oil is, and some oil is much easier to extract than
other oil. There are huge sources such as oil shale, that are not economically
viable at present, but that could be if prices go up. So if we continue to 
burn oil, the most likely model is gradually decreasing supplies, and 
gradually increasing prices - the sort of thing that industry is more capable 
of identifying and dealing with (by finding substitutes, etc.).

>I don't think free market forces accurately price
>limited natural materials because futures 
>only look a very few years ahead.  Many on 
>this list disagree.

I think they're a lot better at it than they used to be. If you read the
accounts of some of the early European explorers of North America, the attitude
was mainly "if we cut down *all* the forests, and kill *all* the beavers,
this is how much money we can make". The idea of limited or renewable natural
resources never occurred to them. Nowadays, timber companies at least plant
new trees, and some companies are starting to think of the long-term economic
benefits of protecting the environment and natural resources. But they still
want to have some numbers to back up any particular action. If some numbers
can be produced to support conservation of helium, that would be great.
The current business/political climate does not appear to be conducive to
having the *government* continue to stockpile helium.

...So, er, maybe we could make a 3D documentary on conservation?

John R


------------------------------