A big number of a very big number is a small number
Apparently we’ve all got to be poorer. Well, yes, again, but this time it’s because:
The global extraction of raw materials is expected to increase by 60% by 2060, with calamitous consequences for the climate and the environment, according an unpublished UN analysis seen by the Guardian.
Natural resource extraction has soared by almost 400% since 1970 due to industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth, according to a presentation of the five-yearly UN Global Resource Outlook made to EU ministers last week.
To get a handle on the sort of size of number they’re talking about:
Each year, the world consumes more than 92b tonnes of materials – biomass (mostly food), metals, fossil fuels and minerals – and this figure is growing at the rate of 3.2% per year.
Of course we don’t, in fact, “consume”, we borrow for a bit. That old phrase of dust to dust, ashes to ashes, is true at the planetary system level. Say, the use of metals - we might dig them up out of one hole, use them then stick them back in another, mine to landfill, but we’ve not consumed them.
But OK, so 92 billion tonnes, call it 100bn. Up by 60%, let’s give them an inch and call it 200 billion tonnes. Big number.
Except: The lithosphere consists of sediments and crystalline rocks with a total mass of 23,000–24,000 × 10x15 metric tons.
24,000,000,000 billion tonnes.
200 billion is 0.0000008%
In a million years we’ll use under 1% of it (assuming we’ve got the right number of zeroes there all the way through).
This is such a problem that: ““Higher figures mean higher impacts,” he said. “In essence, there are no more safe spaces on Earth. We are already out of our safe operating space and if these trends continue, things will get worse. “ which we think might be a bit of an exaggeration. “The report prioritises equity and human wellbeing measurements over GDP growth alone and proposes action to reduce overall demand rather than simply increasing “green” production.” Ah, yes, we must be more equal and poorer as a solution. How did we guess that is what would be suggested? “Decarbonisation without decoupling economic growth and wellbeing from resource use and environmental impacts is not a convincing answer and the currently prevailing focus on cleaning the supply side needs to be complemented with demand-side measures,” Potočnik said.” That, again, means make everyone poorer.
Yes, sure, 200 billion is a big number even when speaking about government budgets and deficits. But the size of the Earth is a really, really, big number. Against which 200 billion is a grain of a smidgeon of a smear. It’s simply not an important nor relevant number nor percentage.
It’s a great excuse to impose perpetual poverty upon the population, of course it is. But it’s not a good reason. Because a big number of a very big number is a small number.