Talk:Natural resource economics

merge
Is this a stand-alone article, or should it be merged with environmental economics or some such? C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a stand alone... the subject is specialized. skip sievert (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

over-linking
There's such a thing as too much linking. "See also", external links, etc. needs to be kept under some kind of control, kept to things which relate closely to the article but aren't included in the article itself.

Also, keep in mind that this article might merge with environmental economics (see above), so a lot of these recent changes could be lost, unless you're planning to expand this article into a stand-alone article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the article
I have expanded the article from a stub, and am now working on it to expand, organize, and improve this economics-related article. So far I have not put on an actual external links section. So far there is no real article body except the lead. The links already there and the picture are directly related... and information to build on. skip sievert (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to merge, you should bring the discussion to Talk:Environmental_economics. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming the article was created because it is considered a stand alone or at least separate study.. I assume that people will now start working on it.. since it is being worked on. Interested parties would have it on their watch list... I would think. A merge is a bad idea... this is a different regime of study than environmental economics... though very related. The body of the article now has some basic material on it... and now needs citation sources... which I will do when I have time... or any one else could do. Mostly the article right now is very basic ... but.. probably contains good information as to topic. This topic is a major academic discipline and is taught through out the world. skip sievert (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

TVP ADspace
This isn't a wikipedia article so much as an add for the venus project. They are continuing this trend with increasing numbers of assorted them based articles.

yes, some of that is relevant but the trend to allow them to use wikipedia as their primary means of legitimizing their cult is probably a bad trend.

This isn't an economics movement, its a video club cult of personality in three tiers.

--68.6.107.90 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
"As radical new technology impacts the materials and minerals world more and more powerfully, the materials used are more and more likely to have perpetual resources."

Pure speculation!

There are many materials for which the U.S. Geological Survey says that there are "no substitutes".

However, the statement is mostly true because when the resources are gone we will either use something else (Old is New as in the stone age) or do without completely. Man existed thousands of years that way, so it is possible.Phmoreno (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perpetual resources vs. exhaustibility needs rewriting
"The perpetual resource concept is a complex one because the concept of the resource is complex and changes with the advent of new technology......"

This is known simply as substitution so I don't think we need to waste several sentences on it. Also, it's misleading because it doesn't mention the increased effort in extracting low-grade resources. This is the old extracting gold from seawater argument.

This needs a list of possible substitutions and a sentence or two on each with a brief process outline and order of magnitude costs. Otherwise, remove unsubstantiated statements. User:Phmoreno|Phmoreno]] (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added Original research and External links tags to the article in support of your improvements. All is One  (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Burnett's comment on this article
Dr. Burnett has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

""Simon has stated that the supply of natural resources is infinite (i.e. perpetual)."

It would help to expand upon the statement above, which now is a standalone sentence within the Wiki entry. Simon is correct to a degree, but it depends on whether an individual views the supply of a resource based on its physical or economic depletion.

The canonical model is of physical depletion whereby a constant quantity is extracted each year from the finite stock of a nonrenewable natural resource. Economic depletion, on the other hand, does not necessarily focus on the physical stock of the resource, but rather the opportunity cost of extracting it (Rodriguez et al., 2015). Rodrigeuz et al. (2015) state: ..."economic depletion would mean the increasing difficulty and eventual unfeasibility of extracting the natural resource due to mining costs."

Rodriguez, X.A., C.A. Arias, and A. Rodrigeuz-Gonzalez. 2015. Physical versus economic depletion of a nonrenewable natural resource. Resources Policy, 46(2): 161-166."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Burnett has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Burnett, J. Wesley, 2013. "Club Convergence and Clustering of U.S. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149578, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)