Bissell wrote:

>Sb here: The issue of running out of coal and containment of radioactive
>materials is one of I don't know how many magnitudes. But if you want
>another "unsolvable" environmental problems, coal is a good example.
>Regardless of the rate of extraction and the time scale, there will come
>a point when coal will run out. . .it may  be a million years, OK?

This is a terrific example of something you can't possibly know.
There may come a time when humans might stop using coal altogether.
For anything.  Period.  Therefore, whatever coal is remaining at that
time--and there may be PLENTY of it in the ground--will still exist.
Alternatively, in a million years, humans could be space mining coal,
or deep ocean mining coal--or even fabricating coal under high
pressure.  How can you possibly *know* (in an epistemic sense)
anything about coal in the distant future with anything like the
confidence you seem to be expressing here?  This may be going pretty
far afield from the original topic that got us started on this
thread, but this is at the heart of the various issues about
"carrying capacity" and economic/resource forecasting.  We cannot
possibly know what the far-off future people will want or need, or
what they might potentially have available to them.

This is precisely the point about the woolly mammoth, when it is
considered as a *natural resource* as opposed to a "species" with
intrinsic or aesthetic value.  Presumably woolly mammoths were the
keystone natural resource of the cro-magnon economy 10,000 years ago.
Absolutely fundamental and necessary for continued human survival.
Well, guess what? that resource ran out.  And you know what else?
humans are still here.  Other resources replaced the woolly mammoth.
Cows, for instance.

Now, is this resource substitution scenario absolutely guaranteed to
repeat itself in the future as regards important resources we
currently consume?  no.  But is it likely with regards to things we
can take reasonable guesses about? that's what the neoclassical
economists think.  The standard examples apply:  copper in
telecommunications being replaced by fiber optics; solar replacing
fossil fuels; the mining of landfills to recover other precious
metals; etc.  This is NOT to say that there is anything *inevitable*
about the process of resource substitution and replaceability--but
the use of historical examples to make some educated guesses about
what is likely to happen in the near future with regards to
particular resources is entirely appropriate and something we do all
the time.

>No
>solution to that problem, when coal is all used up, that's it. Human
>induced extinctions are another example, we can't bring back species
>after they are gone (unless you want to speculate about genetic
>recovery. Actually I think someone suggested that for the  Tasmanian
>Tiger.)

I just don't think you can claim with anything approaching certainty
that "coal will run out."  As far as extinct species go, considered
*as commodities* species are replaceable.  When the last market
hunter in the U.S. shot the last passenger pigeon, people ate more
chicken.  When the last Atlantic cod gets eaten, people will switch
to other species formerly considered "trash fish."  And so on and so
on.  Will *our* lives in the short term be diminished? yes, in some
sense.  But in the long term, I don't think future people will care.
I have no doubt that if there really were 100 billion people at some
far-off point in the future, they would probably learn to eat
whatever's left to eat at that point--some form of algae burger
perhaps.  I just don't think we can can know what those future
peoples' lives will be like.

Do I consider my life diminished because the woolly mammoth is
extinct?  No, I don't really think the woolly mammoth would enhance
my existence today in any real sense.  It would be pretty cool to see
one, no doubt.  But do I need woolly mammoths today?  probably not.
Not even in an aesthetic sense.

Similarly, it is quite possible that those future people may not feel
that their lives are diminished if there are no (fill in your
favorite near-extinct species here) remaining by the time their
generation is born.  There may be no Atlantic cod, or no Bengal
tigers, or no vicunas . . .  say, 10,000 years from now.  Do I think
they will *really* care at that point--i.e. that they will share OUR
present concern for these species?  No, not really.  I'm guessing
that people who live 10,000 years from now are going to have problems
and concerns I cannot possibly conceive of.

Anyway.  It's an interesting question you've posed here: are there
any environmental policy problems that are *theoretically*
unsolvable?  boy, I really don't think so.  I just don't think you
can anticipate or predict the future with that kind of certainty.

Jim

>
>I suspect that if I gave my Environmental Policy class the assignment
>of coming up with examples of "unsolvable" environmental  policy issues,
>the clever blighters would be  able to do so. Right now they are working
>on final exams, so I  won't, but maybe some future class will 'benefit'
>from this discussion.
>
>Steven
>
>Our species and its ways of thinking
>are a product of evolution,
>not the purpose of evolution.
>                  E. O. Wilson
>                  Consilience, 1998