Skip to main content

pslct001

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>unknown</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>pslct001</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="01:03:50" n="7096">

<date>24/01/2000</date><equipment><p>audio</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nm0638" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0638, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0639" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0639, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0640" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0640, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0641" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0641, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0642" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0642, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0643" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0643, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0644" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0644, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0645" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0645, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0646" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0646, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0647" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0647, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0648" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0648, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0649" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0649, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0650" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0650, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0651" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0651, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0652" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0652, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0653" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0653, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0654" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0654, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0655" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0655, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0656" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0656, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0657" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0657, participant, student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="22"><p>number of speakers: 22</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Agricultural &amp; Food Economics</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ps</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG/PG</item>

<item n="module">Environmental Economics</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader><text><body>

<u who="nm0638"> you may remember last time <pause dur="0.2"/> we were talking about some <pause dur="0.3"/> key aspects of natural resource use <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> we said that we would look at the element of scarcity <pause dur="0.7"/> we looked at time and dynamics and the effect that <pause dur="0.6"/> those things have <pause dur="0.2"/> on resource use <pause dur="0.9"/> we looked at technology <pause dur="0.5"/> we spent a few minutes talking about property rights <pause dur="0.4"/> and then we had a bit of a recap <pause dur="0.4"/> looking at various sources of uncertainty <pause dur="1.0"/> # surrounding our decisions concerning the use of natural resources <pause dur="0.4"/> over time <pause dur="2.7"/> we return <pause dur="0.5"/> to the issue of scarcity <pause dur="6.2"/> and we started off by saying that really the <pause dur="0.3"/> the fundamental <pause dur="0.2"/> resource use issue <pause dur="0.7"/> is that we have a rapidly rising <pause dur="0.5"/> global population <pause dur="1.6"/> increasing <pause dur="0.2"/> economic activity <pause dur="0.2"/> by that population <pause dur="1.3"/> resulting in a declining <pause dur="0.2"/> resource base <pause dur="0.8"/> and an increased <pause dur="0.3"/> production <pause dur="0.3"/> of wastes <pause dur="0.6"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> an increased burden if you like on the environment <pause dur="0.3"/> to assimilate <pause dur="0.2"/> those wastes <pause dur="1.5"/> so that's where we left it <pause dur="0.3"/> last time <pause dur="1.3"/> this time i want to continue to explore this issue of scarcity a little bit more <pause dur="0.5"/> and

then to go on to <pause dur="0.4"/> develop a very simple framework <pause dur="0.7"/> # where we can actually try and determine the optimum <pause dur="0.3"/> resource use <pause dur="0.6"/> # over time <pause dur="7.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> you may remember at the start of <pause dur="0.8"/> last week <pause dur="3.2"/> where we were reminding ourselves of <pause dur="0.3"/> the role of economists <pause dur="0.5"/> in <pause dur="1.1"/> the environment and resource use <pause dur="0.5"/> we said well this is <pause dur="0.5"/> the simple view of the world that economists have <pause dur="1.6"/> we look at resources as inputs to the production system they're transformed <pause dur="0.3"/> into goods and services that we want to consume <pause dur="0.7"/> and we said that really that was a rather inadequate framework <pause dur="0.4"/> when we start to want to consider environmental issues <pause dur="1.0"/> within economics <pause dur="3.0"/> because what we have <pause dur="1.8"/> in fact <pause dur="0.6"/> is a whole series of waste products <pause dur="0.3"/> produced <pause dur="0.3"/> not only by the production system itself <pause dur="0.8"/> but <trunc>b</trunc> by the very process <pause dur="0.4"/> of getting resources for instance out of the ground from mining resources <pause dur="0.7"/> and from the process of consumption <pause dur="0.2"/> we produce all sorts of wastes <pause dur="0.3"/> from these three <pause dur="0.2"/> elements <pause dur="1.0"/> associated with the production process <pause dur="2.4"/> and we have no economic

framework within which we can <pause dur="0.2"/> directly <pause dur="1.1"/> consider <pause dur="0.3"/> the problem of producing wastes <pause dur="0.2"/> we noted last week that what we called these things were externalities <pause dur="0.4"/> negative externalities <pause dur="0.3"/> problems that lie outside effectively <pause dur="0.3"/> of our normal economic framework <pause dur="0.4"/> and which somehow now we need to take account of <pause dur="0.2"/> because these things are causing us problems <pause dur="9.4"/> okay look a little bit of science mixed in with economics here <pause dur="2.2"/> the first law of <trunc>thermo</trunc> thermodynamics <pause dur="1.5"/> really just says that energy and matter <pause dur="0.6"/> can't be destroyed <pause dur="4.3"/> energy and matter <pause dur="0.2"/> can't be destroyed <pause dur="4.6"/> so that ultimately the resources that you use <pause dur="0.6"/> will end up <pause dur="0.2"/> being <pause dur="0.2"/> various types <pause dur="0.3"/> of different waste <pause dur="34.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="10"/> one thing that we know that we can do <pause dur="1.2"/> for many natural resources <pause dur="0.8"/> is to actually recycle some of these wastes <pause dur="0.6"/> and get back some of the resource input <pause dur="0.3"/> that we can then use again <pause dur="1.0"/> so if we want to start to incorporate those elements into our simple framework <pause dur="0.2"/> it might look something like this <pause dur="4.2"/> so here's

our resource inputs <pause dur="0.5"/> the production process <pause dur="0.3"/> consumption that's our standard <pause dur="0.3"/> economic model <pause dur="3.0"/> we note <pause dur="2.3"/> the production of wastes <pause dur="0.2"/> from this process <pause dur="1.8"/> but now we've added <pause dur="0.2"/> another element <pause dur="2.4"/> that we can actually recycle some of these wastes <pause dur="2.3"/> to produce more resources <pause dur="4.0"/> there are two things that this diagram <pause dur="1.3"/> takes account of <pause dur="2.1"/> in addition <pause dur="3.6"/> one is the second law of thermodynamics <pause dur="6.1"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> which just says that resources <pause dur="0.2"/> are used entropically <pause dur="0.8"/> in other words they're dissipated <pause dur="2.0"/> so think of <pause dur="0.3"/> the use of <pause dur="0.2"/> oil say <pause dur="0.4"/> fossil fuel like oil <pause dur="2.3"/> it has loads of different <pause dur="0.5"/> outputs doesn't it <pause dur="2.2"/> it produces energy that we want yes but it produces loads of other emissions in all sorts of <pause dur="0.2"/> of other by-products C-O-two and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> and you can't capture those back <pause dur="2.0"/> combine them again <pause dur="0.2"/> and get the fossil fuel back the oil back again can you that's obvious <pause dur="1.4"/> resources are used entropically they get dissipated some dissipated into the environment and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> so this <pause dur="0.3"/> simple <pause dur="0.3"/> formula here is just saying <pause dur="0.2"/> that you can never recapture <pause dur="0.3"/>

however good you are at recycling your waste <pause dur="0.5"/> you can never recapture the whole amount <pause dur="0.5"/> of the resource again <pause dur="1.0"/> which is pretty obvious i guess <pause dur="1.3"/> and that's what this diagram takes account of <pause dur="0.4"/> because here it says look <pause dur="0.2"/> however good your recycling <pause dur="0.6"/> some of these wastes are going to end up in the environment <pause dur="1.4"/> into the into the sink if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> of the environment <pause dur="0.2"/> we talk about environmental sinks <pause dur="2.0"/> the other thing this diagram takes account of <pause dur="0.5"/> is the fact that recycling itself <pause dur="0.8"/> is a resource using activity <pause dur="2.1"/> okay recycling itself <pause dur="0.2"/> is a resource using activity <pause dur="0.3"/> which is why we've got this red dotted line <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah showing that there's a resource input into the recycling process itself <pause dur="2.3"/> and occasionally you get <pause dur="0.2"/> crazy situations <pause dur="0.8"/> where recycling is such a great idea people think <pause dur="0.3"/> that they actually end up using more resources in the recycling process than they're actually saving <pause dur="22.0"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> any questions about that <pause dur="6.2"/> okay let's have a a brief and very simplistic look because

these two sessions are <pause dur="0.2"/> introductory sessions for this course <pause dur="0.5"/> a brief and and rather simplistic look <pause dur="0.5"/> at <pause dur="0.4"/> natural resources and their characteristics <pause dur="2.6"/> and very very briefly <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm going to look at <pause dur="0.7"/> air land minerals water <pause dur="0.4"/> ecological resources <pause dur="0.6"/> and i probably won't look at <pause dur="0.2"/> # solar power or or <pause dur="0.5"/> sun <pause dur="0.8"/> to any great extent at all <pause dur="13.0"/> so if we start looking at air first <pause dur="7.1"/> i said it was going to be simplistic why is air important to us well first of all it's a source of nutrients <pause dur="1.6"/> for plant and animal species <pause dur="3.0"/> secondly it's a sink for pollutants <pause dur="0.6"/> we pump all sorts of stuff into the air don't we use it as a sink for pollutants <pause dur="2.3"/> it's important for atmospheric protection in the climate system <pause dur="4.7"/> it's an important energy resource <pause dur="2.4"/> wind power <pause dur="2.1"/> and it's <trunc>im</trunc> an important spatial medium to state the obvious <pause dur="7.7"/> and these figures aren't really worth getting down because they're just <pause dur="0.4"/> illustrative <pause dur="0.5"/> and i've already given you <pause dur="0.3"/> some ideas of reading <pause dur="0.3"/> and the United Nations # Environment Programme website

where you can get <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> data like this probably more up to date data now as well <pause dur="4.0"/> but i just picked out some pollution figures <pause dur="1.5"/> for some of the major cities <pause dur="0.3"/> of the world <pause dur="2.0"/> so we've got London Sydney Montreal New York Beijing <pause dur="0.4"/> and Delhi <pause dur="2.9"/> and this first column <pause dur="2.3"/> looks at the number of days of the year <pause dur="0.5"/> when sulphur dioxide levels <pause dur="0.4"/> are above <pause dur="0.9"/> a certain limit <pause dur="2.1"/> think that's a hundred-and-fifty micrograms per metre <pause dur="0.3"/> cubed <pause dur="3.1"/> and we know that above that limit <pause dur="0.7"/> it will <pause dur="0.5"/> have <pause dur="2.0"/> a negative effect on human health <pause dur="0.7"/> on the <pause dur="0.8"/> far <pause dur="0.2"/> column here <pause dur="0.3"/> we've got the level of <pause dur="0.6"/> particulate matter <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah particles in the air <pause dur="1.5"/> # again the number of days that they're over a certain <pause dur="0.3"/> critical level and again <pause dur="0.2"/> that critical level we know <pause dur="0.4"/> will cause health problems <pause dur="0.3"/> in the population <pause dur="1.6"/> so you can see in London over the time that this survey was <pause dur="0.2"/> # taken <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> out of the year seventeen <pause dur="0.2"/> seventeen days <pause dur="0.4"/> in London where S-O-two levels were too high eleven in Sydney <pause dur="0.4"/> thirty-two Montreal twenty-two New York <pause dur="0.3"/> a hundred-and-fifty-seven <pause dur="0.2"/> in

Beijing <pause dur="0.7"/> forty-nine <pause dur="0.2"/> in Delhi <pause dur="2.2"/> so not surprisingly <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> a city like Beijing <pause dur="0.5"/> # far more polluted than a city <pause dur="0.5"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> Sydney <pause dur="0.5"/> in terms of sulphur dioxide <pause dur="0.2"/> at least <pause dur="0.4"/> and in fact when you start to look at particulate matter <pause dur="1.1"/> and these are particles that will have all sorts of deposits <pause dur="0.2"/> attached to them <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> some will be <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> cancer causing <pause dur="1.0"/> # chemicals et cetera et cetera have all sorts of impacts <pause dur="0.3"/> on human health <pause dur="0.5"/> # lung diseases <pause dur="0.8"/> bronchitis <pause dur="1.0"/> all these sorts of things <pause dur="0.4"/> three-hundred-and-thirty-eight days <pause dur="0.8"/> nearly every day of the year <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> over the time this survey was taken <pause dur="0.3"/> in Beijing and Delhi <pause dur="0.3"/> were these particulate matter days <pause dur="0.2"/> over that critical limit <pause dur="3.0"/> and the U-N has worked out then that over six-<pause dur="0.5"/>hundred-million people <pause dur="0.4"/> live in cities where the sulphur dioxide level <pause dur="0.2"/> is having a bad effect on their health <pause dur="2.5"/> and one-and-a-quarter-billion people <pause dur="1.0"/> are in cities with unacceptable particulate matter <pause dur="2.5"/> so there's a lot of people <pause dur="0.3"/> living in <pause dur="0.6"/> an environment <pause dur="1.1"/> an air environment <pause dur="0.5"/> that is pretty bad for their health <pause dur="5.2"/>

okay <pause dur="12.7"/> so those figures were taken out of the World Resources <pause dur="0.5"/> book that i showed you last last week <pause dur="10.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="8"/> again as part of our introduction let's have a quick look at land <pause dur="0.2"/> as a resource <pause dur="5.4"/> again obviously land an important spatial entity that we use to build on et cetera et cetera <pause dur="0.3"/> an important medium <pause dur="0.9"/> for example for crop growth <pause dur="1.0"/> an important source of <pause dur="0.2"/> other natural resources mineral resources <pause dur="0.5"/> and so on <pause dur="1.2"/> and again <pause dur="0.6"/> it's a sink for pollutants <pause dur="9.7"/> so in terms of its value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> what are the important characteristics of land <pause dur="1.3"/> what sorts of <pause dur="0.9"/> characteristics attributes of land are important to us <pause dur="0.9"/> any ideas <pause dur="8.3"/> yeah </u> <u who="sf0639" trans="overlap"> it's in fixed supply </u> <pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> it's in fixed supply and that's sure that's the economist in you <pause dur="0.3"/> responding there isn't it <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay it's in fixed supply <pause dur="0.3"/> but what attributes what characteristics <pause dur="2.2"/> mean that land is either very valuable to us <pause dur="0.3"/> or not very valuable to us <pause dur="2.5"/> or very useful to us or not very useful to us <pause dur="1.1"/> yeah </u> <u who="sf0640" trans="overlap"> fertility </u> <pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> sorry </u> <pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0640" trans="pause"> fertility </u> <u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/>

okay fertility level of fertility in the soil <pause dur="0.5"/> anything else</u> <pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sm0641" trans="pause"> whether it's flat or kind of steep and slopey</u><u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay so the topography of of the land yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> anything else</u> <pause dur="7.7"/> <u who="sm0642" trans="pause"> climate and microclimate </u> <u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah okay climate <pause dur="2.5"/> so climate topography <pause dur="0.6"/> altitude these things <pause dur="1.6"/> are are linked of course <pause dur="1.6"/> # soil you mentioned <pause dur="0.2"/> anything else </u> <pause dur="11.3"/> <u who="sm0643" trans="pause"> its geography to other <pause dur="0.2"/> compared to other sources </u> <pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so its location <pause dur="0.3"/> is going to be important <pause dur="0.6"/> whether it's located near <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> another <pause dur="0.2"/> # important natural resource like a water resource <pause dur="0.4"/> like a river or the sea or whatever for instance <pause dur="1.3"/> and of course property rights <pause dur="3.2"/> important for all resources we said <pause dur="2.4"/> but particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> associated with with land as a resource <pause dur="4.5"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> and again i've just <pause dur="2.9"/> picked out a few <pause dur="0.2"/> figures <pause dur="2.4"/> looking at land use across the world <pause dur="2.2"/> so looking at <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the percentage of crop land pasture land forest <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and wilderness which is quite interesting <pause dur="0.5"/> throughout the world <pause dur="1.2"/> so not surprisingly <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> Europe <pause dur="1.4"/> thirty per cent of Europe is <pause dur="0.2"/> down to crops <pause dur="0.7"/> eighteen per cent to pasture

thirty-three per cent to forest <pause dur="0.6"/> # and only four per cent <pause dur="1.9"/> is total wilderness <pause dur="0.4"/> so nineteen per cent will be <pause dur="0.5"/> land that's built on and <pause dur="0.3"/> all other land <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> including swamp <pause dur="0.4"/> desert <pause dur="0.4"/> et cetera <pause dur="3.0"/> so if you compare Europe <pause dur="2.7"/> with a country <pause dur="1.5"/> well with an area rather rather rather a region such as South America <pause dur="0.9"/> here we've got relatively little <pause dur="0.3"/> crop land overall eight per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> quite a lot of <pause dur="0.2"/> pasture <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah a lot of range <pause dur="0.2"/> management twenty-seven per cent <pause dur="0.6"/> lot of forest fifty-two per cent we know there's a lot <pause dur="0.6"/> important <pause dur="0.2"/> # forest resources in South America <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> quite a lot of wilderness too twenty-four per cent <pause dur="1.5"/> i think the U-N classified wilderness <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> as an area <pause dur="0.2"/> that had no signs of man's activities at all <pause dur="0.5"/> so there's no roads no habitations <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> no <trunc>teleph</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> telecommunications or or anything <pause dur="0.6"/> so no no sign of their <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>o</trunc> of man's input at all <pause dur="4.4"/> and here's a quite an interesting contrast here for the U-S and Canada <pause dur="0.8"/> which have <pause dur="0.3"/> totally different <pause dur="0.2"/> figures <pause dur="2.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> U-S <trunc>r</trunc> <trunc>r</trunc> relatively population <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>dense<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.3"/>

compared with <pause dur="0.3"/> with Canada <pause dur="0.6"/> # so Canada <pause dur="0.2"/> sixty-five per cent <pause dur="0.8"/> of Canada is classified as total wilderness but of course a lot of those areas are very very <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>cold<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> areas <pause dur="2.0"/> in the far north <pause dur="4.4"/> okay so a a global idea of <pause dur="0.2"/> of land use i thought those figures might be <pause dur="0.5"/> useful to get things into perspective into context <pause dur="7.1"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> and while we're talking about forestry <pause dur="0.8"/> i just <pause dur="0.5"/> dug out a few figures on <pause dur="0.2"/> on forestry <pause dur="0.7"/> that might be interesting <pause dur="3.1"/> don't know whether we can see this but i'll <pause dur="0.4"/> talk you through it anyway <pause dur="5.7"/> a diagram here just showing the area of closed forests cleared annually <pause dur="0.7"/> in various tropical countries in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.9"/> i've got some nineteen-nineties figures to see how things have <pause dur="0.5"/> changed in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="2.4"/> so closed forests where there's a where there's a closed canopy <pause dur="0.7"/> over the top <pause dur="1.8"/> so you can see for instance <pause dur="0.6"/> that throughout the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.5"/> Brazil was <pause dur="0.2"/> clearing over two per cent <pause dur="0.3"/> of its forest closed forest area <pause dur="0.2"/> every year <pause dur="4.0"/> yeah so if you carried on at that sort of rate

then <pause dur="0.6"/> you can see <pause dur="0.6"/> that fifty or sixty <pause dur="0.2"/> years and you've virtually cleared the whole lot if you carried on at that rate <pause dur="0.2"/> depending on replanting of course <pause dur="0.7"/> India four-point-one per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> every year <pause dur="0.5"/> of closed forest <pause dur="0.7"/> Costa Rica here <pause dur="0.3"/> seven-point-six per cent of its closed forest being cleared <pause dur="0.2"/> every year in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="1.1"/> so you can see that deforestation was <pause dur="1.7"/> maybe still is we'll see <pause dur="0.5"/> # a real problem <pause dur="0.3"/> certainly up until the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.8"/> so what's been done about that since <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="0.5"/> these are updated figures sorry they're a bit scruffy <pause dur="7.1"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> this is for the nineteen-ninety to ninety-five period <pause dur="0.4"/> when in South America <pause dur="0.9"/> well it we only had Brazil before <pause dur="0.2"/> # two-point-two per cent but South America overall <pause dur="0.5"/> # losing at just <pause dur="0.3"/> point-five of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> one half of one per cent <pause dur="0.4"/> every year <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> zero-point-five per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> a year <pause dur="0.2"/> Asia <pause dur="0.2"/> zero-point-seven per cent a year <pause dur="0.2"/> Central America still <pause dur="0.3"/> # relatively <pause dur="0.4"/> # rapid compared with other regions one-point-three per cent a year <pause dur="0.3"/> but nothing like the

seven-point-six per cent that it was <pause dur="0.4"/> # back in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="1.5"/> Africa <pause dur="0.4"/> point-seven per cent Europe is actually increasing <pause dur="0.5"/> its forest area <pause dur="0.2"/> slightly <pause dur="0.4"/> point-three per cent <pause dur="0.4"/> so these are total figures <pause dur="0.3"/> they take account of <pause dur="0.2"/> afforestation <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>a</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> as well <pause dur="0.2"/> so they're not directly comparable <pause dur="0.5"/> but certainly <pause dur="0.4"/> countries <pause dur="0.5"/> areas of the world <pause dur="0.2"/> have taken action <pause dur="0.5"/> because <trunc>y</trunc> you know to try and slow down the rate of deforestation <pause dur="0.9"/> but at a global level <pause dur="1.0"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> the net effect is still <pause dur="0.4"/> that we are losing trees on the planet <pause dur="0.3"/> at a rate of around point-three per cent <pause dur="0.6"/> # a year <pause dur="10.0"/> we've got two other resource types that i want to look at <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> sorry three other <pause dur="0.5"/> fairly briefly <pause dur="0.5"/> the next is <pause dur="0.8"/> a quick look at mineral resources <pause dur="12.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="9"/> and one simple classification of mineral resources <pause dur="0.5"/> might be into whether they are metallic or non-metallic <pause dur="3.2"/> so the metallic resources we're talking about <pause dur="0.3"/> relatively abundant <pause dur="0.8"/> resources such as <pause dur="0.3"/> iron iron ore <pause dur="1.2"/> and of course there are <trunc>relativis</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> relatively scarce ones

such as copper <pause dur="0.6"/> gold and so on <pause dur="3.4"/> on the non-metallic side <pause dur="1.2"/> we can look at the different uses to which non-metallic resources are put <pause dur="0.4"/> so we can classify them into for instance <pause dur="0.2"/> whether they're used for <pause dur="0.3"/> chemical uses <pause dur="0.6"/> of one sort and another <pause dur="0.7"/> given the example of nitrates <pause dur="3.3"/> whether they're used for building purposes <pause dur="1.1"/> clay <pause dur="0.4"/> cement <pause dur="0.4"/> sand <pause dur="3.1"/> and of course the important fossil fuels <pause dur="0.8"/> that are used to produce energy <pause dur="1.9"/> like oil <pause dur="0.2"/> and coal <pause dur="11.0"/> and so we're when we're looking at this issue of scarcity <pause dur="1.7"/> it's a fairly relative term isn't it <pause dur="0.7"/> and i've got some figures here that i thought were interesting <pause dur="0.7"/> and i haven't updated them <pause dur="1.6"/> because i haven't # managed to get hold of <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> comparable data <pause dur="1.2"/> i wanted to update them to ninety-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> and they didn't actually produce <pause dur="0.3"/> comparable data so i so i couldn't do that <pause dur="1.0"/> but although this data is over ten years old it still still makes the point <pause dur="0.4"/> it looks at <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of major region <pause dur="1.4"/> in terms of production and consumption <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.4"/> major regions in the world <pause dur="0.2"/> and

it looks at the world total <pause dur="1.9"/> the interesting thing to look at <pause dur="0.8"/> are these two figures <pause dur="0.2"/> the reserves and the reserve base <pause dur="0.8"/> and i think this is a very <pause dur="0.2"/> useful <pause dur="0.5"/> way of thinking about <pause dur="0.2"/> the scarcity <pause dur="0.3"/> of a resource <pause dur="0.4"/> it looks at the life-years <pause dur="0.6"/> left <pause dur="0.2"/> of the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> at current rates of consumption <pause dur="4.6"/> so of reserves that are at the moment <pause dur="0.3"/> economically viable <pause dur="1.3"/> to actually mine <pause dur="1.1"/> in nineteen-eighty-eight there were a hundred-and-sixty-seven years worth <pause dur="0.4"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.9"/> left in the world <pause dur="2.2"/> but there are other reserves that we know about that at the moment or at least in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> weren't economically viable <pause dur="1.2"/> to mine <pause dur="0.6"/> and if you included those all known <pause dur="0.4"/> reserves <pause dur="1.7"/> then there's over two-hundred years two-hundred-and-thirty-six years worth <pause dur="1.2"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.3"/> in the world <pause dur="1.3"/> but it could cost you quite a lot to get it <pause dur="0.3"/> all of it <pause dur="4.6"/> and the smudgy question that i had written down here was <pause dur="0.3"/> to what extent did these figures take account of recycling <pause dur="1.8"/> and i didn't find the answer to that i'm afraid <pause dur="0.2"/> from the U-N

figures <pause dur="1.5"/> clearly if you stepped up your recycling programme <pause dur="0.5"/> then <pause dur="0.3"/> # effectively you can reduce your level of consumption <pause dur="1.0"/> and # increase your your life-years <pause dur="0.2"/> from your resource <pause dur="1.3"/> so that's iron ore relatively abundant <pause dur="0.4"/> we've got <pause dur="0.8"/> over two-hundred years worth probably of known reserves there are probably other reserves that we haven't found yet <pause dur="6.1"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/>

here's a different <pause dur="0.2"/> resource <pause dur="2.3"/> again the only figures that you might want to take down in your notes are these <trunc>life</trunc> <pause dur="0.8"/> # life-year figures <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> here we can see with <trunc>z</trunc> with zinc <pause dur="2.3"/> a relatively scarce <pause dur="1.0"/> metallic <pause dur="0.2"/> mineral <pause dur="3.4"/> total known reserves <pause dur="0.8"/> regardless of how much it costs us to get the stuff <pause dur="0.5"/> out of the ground <pause dur="0.3"/> only forty-two years <pause dur="0.4"/> in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="1.5"/> and only half of that <pause dur="0.4"/> were actually economically viable <pause dur="0.9"/> to mine in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> just twenty-one years <pause dur="1.7"/> so in terms of relative <pause dur="0.3"/> scarcity <pause dur="0.7"/> # zinc a relatively <pause dur="0.4"/> scarce mineral resource <pause dur="0.4"/> compared with <pause dur="0.4"/> iron ore <pause dur="0.9"/> fairly obviously <pause dur="2.7"/> and what i was particularly interested in is finding out <pause dur="0.5"/> the estimation of this figure today ten years on <pause dur="1.8"/> does that really mean today that we have <pause dur="0.4"/> less than ten years <pause dur="0.4"/> worth of reserves of zinc left <pause dur="3.3"/> if i can find the figure <pause dur="0.2"/> i i will <pause dur="0.6"/> i'll let you know <pause dur="20.9"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="26"/> just a few other <pause dur="0.2"/> quick <pause dur="0.8"/> illustrative figures <pause dur="0.8"/> on life-years <pause dur="1.8"/> you won't be able to see all this but i will # <pause dur="0.5"/>

point out <pause dur="0.6"/> the interesting bit <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at fossil fuels <pause dur="2.1"/> just quickly running through here <pause dur="0.9"/> looking at the life-years <pause dur="0.5"/> left <pause dur="3.0"/> again in nineteen-eighty-eight looking at <pause dur="1.6"/> current levels then <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # consumption <pause dur="1.3"/> looking at oil <pause dur="0.9"/> just ten years worth in North America apparently <pause dur="0.9"/> over fifty years in Latin America <pause dur="0.7"/> Middle East they couldn't even estimate it they just put a hundred years plus in the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>Middle East<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="1.2"/> lucky old Middle East <pause dur="8.1"/> so a relatively scarce resource certainly <pause dur="0.6"/> for North America <pause dur="2.1"/> and Western Europe here <pause dur="2.0"/> what about natural gas <pause dur="0.2"/> again North America fourteen years Western Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> thirty-four years <pause dur="0.9"/> # Middle East again a hundred plus years Africa a hundred plus years <pause dur="0.9"/> so the world totals at the bottom here <pause dur="0.3"/> forty-one years worth of <pause dur="1.3"/> # reserves of oil <pause dur="0.7"/> global oil reserves <pause dur="1.5"/> fifty-eight years worth of natural gas <pause dur="0.2"/> apparently <pause dur="1.1"/> and when you look at coal <pause dur="1.4"/> we've got over two-hundred <pause dur="0.2"/> years worth of coal reserves in the in in the world so coal <pause dur="0.2"/> a relatively abundant resource <pause dur="0.4"/> compared

with <pause dur="0.7"/> oil and natural gas <pause dur="5.5"/> so in Western Europe again we've got over two-hundred years worth of <pause dur="0.7"/> coal reserves <pause dur="0.7"/> Africa's got <pause dur="0.8"/> three-hundred-and-fifty <pause dur="0.3"/> years worth <pause dur="0.5"/> and so on <pause dur="0.7"/> relatively abundant <pause dur="12.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="30"/> sorry <pause dur="5.9"/> so that was our quick look into into minerals <pause dur="6.8"/> let's have an even quicker look at water <pause dur="1.3"/> as a resource <pause dur="3.8"/> and if you haven't done this exercise before <pause dur="1.3"/> it's quite illuminating <pause dur="0.9"/> write down all the <pause dur="0.5"/> the uses <pause dur="0.7"/> all the reasons why water is valuable to us <pause dur="0.7"/> all the uses for water <pause dur="1.7"/> what do we use water for <pause dur="0.8"/> and all the reasons why it might be valuable to us <pause dur="7.8"/> we'll see what we've got in a couple of minutes </u><pause dur="1:30.8"/> <event desc="doing task set" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1:30"/><u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay what have we got who wants to start us off <pause dur="2.8"/> anyone uses of water </u><pause dur="2.0"/> <u who="sf0644" trans="pause"> energy </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> energy </u><u who="sf0644" trans="latching"> yeah </u> <pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="2.5"/> we'll come on to that in a minute </u> <pause dur="1.4"/> <u who="sm0645" trans="pause"> drinking </u> <pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yes thank you for stating the obvious one first on my list <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah okay <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> i've called it potable supplies drinking water supplies <pause dur="0.5"/> because of course in in many countries certainly in this country <pause dur="0.4"/> we use drinking quality

water <pause dur="0.3"/> to do all sorts of things with not just drink <pause dur="2.1"/> so we wash ourselves in drinking quality water we wash our clothes in drinking quality water <pause dur="0.3"/> we sprinkle our gardens with drinking quality water in this country <pause dur="1.7"/> whether that's a good use of potable supplies of water <pause dur="0.5"/> i'll leave you to <pause dur="0.3"/> think about <pause dur="1.2"/> okay so potable supplies <pause dur="3.6"/> what else </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sm0646" trans="pause"> non-potable <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>supplies <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/></u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> which you use for </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sm0646" trans="pause"> # <pause dur="0.4"/> energy</u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah we've had that</u><u who="sm0646" trans="overlap"> we've already had <pause dur="0.3"/> # </u><u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah </u> <pause dur="2.5"/> <u who="sm0646" trans="pause"> for irrigation and </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> all right irrigation <pause dur="0.3"/> anything else we'll come on to that it's <trunc>f</trunc> further down on my list </u><pause dur="1.0"/> <u who="sm0647" trans="overlap"> recreation </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah okay recreation boating and all sorts of <pause dur="0.5"/> things yeah </u> <pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sm0648" trans="pause"> food source </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> food source <pause dur="0.5"/> fisheries </u><u who="sm0649" trans="overlap"> fishing </u><pause dur="0.2"/><u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> seaweeds all sorts of things yeah <pause dur="0.8"/> anything else <pause dur="6.2"/> please someone the next thing on my list <pause dur="4.4"/> what else do we use water for <pause dur="2.9"/> we drink it <pause dur="0.5"/> irrigate <pause dur="0.8"/> we produce power <pause dur="0.7"/> using it </u><pause dur="0.7"/><u who="sm0650" trans="pause"> transport</u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> good <pause dur="0.3"/> it's not <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>the next thing on <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>my list but </u><u who="sf0651" trans="overlap"> sanitation and removal of sewage </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause">

yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="2.3"/> anything else <pause dur="0.2"/> well i suppose that is the sort of category i was thinking of actually <pause dur="0.7"/> various industrial uses <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> whole load of industrial uses from cooling to <pause dur="0.6"/> all sorts of things <pause dur="5.7"/> okay you mentioned irrigation we've got that hydro-electric power <pause dur="0.5"/> # transport <pause dur="1.2"/> as well as recreation i've included <pause dur="0.8"/> # sort of landscape <pause dur="0.2"/> amenity value <pause dur="2.2"/> these things are all linked <pause dur="4.1"/> anything else <pause dur="2.4"/> we've had food production <pause dur="8.5"/> anyone got anything else on their list that we haven't <pause dur="0.5"/> had </u><pause dur="2.8"/> <u who="sm0652" trans="pause"> it's life-sustaining <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/></u> <u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> yeah yeah i think that's quite an important thing </u><u who="sm0652" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> to put down so it yeah <pause dur="0.5"/> it's life-sustaining <pause dur="0.3"/> i've got sort of habitat and ecological value <pause dur="0.3"/> and this smudgy bit <pause dur="0.2"/> just talks about biological cycles which is your point <pause dur="2.3"/> yeah it's a it's crucial to biological cycles isn't it <pause dur="0.8"/> and it's important for habitat <pause dur="0.3"/> ecological value <pause dur="2.0"/> i know a lot of these things are <pause dur="0.2"/> are linked <pause dur="0.4"/> you mentioned food production <pause dur="2.0"/> as well as that of course <pause dur="0.7"/> it can be an important source of <pause dur="0.2"/>

minerals <pause dur="5.6"/> it's an important sink for pollutants <pause dur="0.8"/> and linked to the biological cycles bit <pause dur="0.5"/> of course it's important <pause dur="0.3"/> to climate system <pause dur="2.0"/> and that's not an exhaustive list i'm sure you can think of <pause dur="0.2"/> of other things <pause dur="2.0"/> so it's a pretty valuable resource to us isn't it a pretty useful resource <pause dur="9.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="14"/> we'll stop for a a quick coffee break in a minute but before we do that <pause dur="3.7"/> just one area of use here which i thought might be useful to look at <pause dur="0.4"/> and that's # <pause dur="0.4"/> irrigation <pause dur="1.3"/> so here we're looking at fresh water withdrawals by region <pause dur="0.4"/> we're looking at <pause dur="0.2"/> figures for the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> projections for <pause dur="0.3"/> this year two-thousand <pause dur="2.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> because the <pause dur="0.3"/> the diagram didn't have that i've just coloured in <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> the proportions that are used for different uses <pause dur="1.2"/> so I-R is the red is irrigation <pause dur="0.7"/> I-N is what's used for industrial purposes <pause dur="0.4"/> and D <pause dur="0.2"/> is what's used for domestic <pause dur="1.0"/> purposes <pause dur="2.6"/> so in Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> most water is used for industry <pause dur="0.6"/> followed by irrigation <pause dur="0.4"/> followed by domestic purposes <pause dur="1.8"/> not surprisingly in Asia the vast

quantity of water is used for irrigation <pause dur="0.4"/> with a relatively small amount used for industry <pause dur="0.3"/> and domestic purposes <pause dur="3.2"/> and so on you can see the figures for yourself <pause dur="1.0"/> what's noticeable <pause dur="0.6"/> is that <pause dur="2.4"/> over the nineteen-eighties to two-thousand <pause dur="0.7"/> period <pause dur="0.8"/> there <pause dur="1.3"/> has been <pause dur="0.6"/> a pretty <pause dur="1.1"/> big increase <pause dur="0.4"/> in the amount of <pause dur="0.2"/> of water used for <pause dur="1.1"/> these various purposes <pause dur="2.5"/> again putting even greater demands on the resource base <pause dur="2.2"/> yeah remember the diagram we had increasing population <pause dur="0.3"/> increasing economic activity this is these are all <pause dur="0.3"/> signs of that <pause dur="1.0"/> and the stresses and strains that that that places on resource use <pause dur="0.4"/> on resources <pause dur="5.8"/> okay finally just something to think about <pause dur="0.2"/> i thought i'd get some pollution figures out <pause dur="1.5"/> and i i just hit on <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/> two little <pause dur="0.5"/> figures as being illustrative <pause dur="3.2"/> okay <pause dur="2.3"/> sorry <pause dur="2.4"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> and again <trunc>the</trunc> these are late nineteen-eighties figures <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="2.1"/> this is looking at faecal coliform bacteria in the water <pause dur="0.9"/> so this is <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at the levels of these bacteria <pause dur="2.7"/> per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="2.2"/> yeah so faecal coliform

bacteria coming from <pause dur="0.7"/> faeces <pause dur="2.9"/> for instance <pause dur="2.5"/> so in the U-K <pause dur="0.5"/> looking at the River Exe <pause dur="0.2"/> which is around <pause dur="0.6"/> Exeter <pause dur="1.6"/> way <pause dur="2.3"/> per <pause dur="0.9"/> hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.7"/> there are five-hundred-and-fifty <pause dur="0.6"/> of these bacteria <pause dur="0.5"/> per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="3.0"/> but if you looked at the Sabarmati <pause dur="1.1"/> in India <pause dur="0.4"/> and i don't know whether that's a system or a river i've no idea what that is <pause dur="1.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> then you are looking at <pause dur="0.5"/> one-point-seven-<pause dur="0.3"/>billion <pause dur="1.4"/> of these bacteria <pause dur="0.5"/> per <pause dur="0.2"/> hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="1.8"/> so that's <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> a relative <pause dur="0.2"/> measure <pause dur="0.7"/> of pollution for those two <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> river systems <pause dur="0.3"/> which are being used for totally different purposes of course <pause dur="0.9"/> in totally <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> different circumstances <pause dur="2.2"/> and there's a great improvement in this <pause dur="0.4"/> river <pause dur="0.8"/> in India because it was five-point-four-billion <pause dur="0.5"/> faecal coliform bacteria per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.4"/> so it's gone to <pause dur="0.2"/> # less than half <pause dur="1.1"/> about a third <pause dur="13.0"/> so all sorts of waste will be <trunc>go</trunc> will be <pause dur="0.4"/> being produced <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> pumped out into this into this river of course <pause dur="1.0"/> people will be

washing in it <pause dur="0.9"/> # livestock would be <pause dur="0.2"/> drinking and being washed in it et cetera et cetera <pause dur="0.2"/> all sorts of activities being carried out <pause dur="2.4"/> okay but not a not a very healthy environment is it to be washing in and so on <pause dur="1.5"/> now you can imagine the health problems that accrue from that level of pollution <pause dur="3.0"/> okay thank you that's time for coffee obviously <pause dur="0.8"/> # let's just break for five minutes please because i do want to <pause dur="0.5"/> finish within <pause dur="0.4"/> half an hour or so <pause dur="1.3"/> okay so a quick comfort break for five minutes </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> so that was a quick look at # water resources <pause dur="14.1"/>

let's have a look at <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> ecological resources <pause dur="1.9"/> what do we mean by ecological resources <pause dur="0.7"/> here's a little definition <pause dur="3.1"/> all plant and animal resources in terms of individuals species communities habitats and ecosystems <pause dur="0.7"/> other than those managed specifically <pause dur="0.8"/> for financial gain <pause dur="1.6"/> <unclear>a</unclear> slightly sort of hazy definition <pause dur="2.1"/> but in other words commercial fish farms wouldn't come into this category <pause dur="1.8"/> commercial forest plantations wouldn't <pause dur="0.2"/> i guess come into this category <pause dur="1:04.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="15"/> this time just <pause dur="0.4"/> let's start with a little bit of <pause dur="0.2"/> simple little bit of data <pause dur="1.2"/> looking at # <pause dur="0.6"/> globally threatened animal species <pause dur="0.7"/> and i've just chosen three countries <pause dur="0.3"/> three very different countries <pause dur="0.5"/> Brazil the U-K and India <pause dur="4.9"/> and these are animal species that won't include insects <pause dur="4.3"/> so Brazil <pause dur="0.6"/> some three-thousand species known <pause dur="2.0"/> of which the U-N reckoned <pause dur="0.5"/> a hundred-and-five <pause dur="1.1"/> were threatened <pause dur="0.7"/> and the i think the definition of being threatened was <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/>

extinction <pause dur="0.5"/> # likely within the next ten years unless something was done <pause dur="5.0"/> the U-K <pause dur="1.7"/> relatively speaking not so species <pause dur="0.2"/> rich <pause dur="1.1"/> for these animal species three-hundred-and-thirty-five <pause dur="0.6"/> of which sixty-six <pause dur="0.2"/> of them <pause dur="0.3"/> were considered to be threatened <pause dur="1.3"/> and India again relatively species rich over two-thousand <pause dur="0.7"/> known species of which <pause dur="0.4"/> a hundred-and-seventy-eight <pause dur="3.4"/> were thought to be threatened <pause dur="3.0"/> and i don't know what message from from this little bit of data <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> sort of comes across to you but one of the things that <pause dur="0.4"/> comes across to me <pause dur="0.5"/> is that here we are in in the U-K <pause dur="0.4"/> in the developed world <pause dur="0.4"/> we're always talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> # dreadful things happening in other parts of the world and the loss of species the loss of rainforest <pause dur="0.3"/> and the effect on species et cetera in Brazil <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> here we are with a relatively high proportion <pause dur="0.3"/> of our own animal species <pause dur="0.5"/> threatened <pause dur="0.7"/> by possible extinction <pause dur="0.5"/> so what that says to me is that maybe we ought to <pause dur="0.7"/> look at our own backyard and start doing some things in this

country <pause dur="0.5"/> as well <pause dur="0.7"/> which we are of course <pause dur="13.6"/> okay so why are <pause dur="0.2"/> ecological resources important to us <pause dur="0.7"/> what's their value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> why are <trunc>s</trunc> we so worried <pause dur="0.6"/> about # species becoming extinct <pause dur="0.4"/> habitats losing habitats and so on <pause dur="7.0"/> any ideas <pause dur="11.5"/> perhaps they're not perhaps we shouldn't bother <pause dur="0.3"/> who <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>cares<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> who cares if these species become extinct let's not waste resources worrying about them yeah <pause dur="2.6"/></u><u who="sm0653" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> does it matter if some obscure species in Brazil becomes extinct </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sm0654" trans="pause"> it's all to do with the natural equilibrium</u> <pause dur="1.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="1.4"/> so we're worried then that <pause dur="0.2"/> we may disrupt the environment <pause dur="0.9"/> so we're very worried about environmental stability and sustainability <pause dur="4.0"/> the assumption being that <pause dur="0.6"/> species rich ecosystems <pause dur="0.4"/> are more stable <pause dur="1.1"/> ecosystems <pause dur="2.1"/> and if you start to lose species <pause dur="0.8"/> you're disrupting the ecosystem <pause dur="0.3"/> which may lead to environmental instability of <pause dur="0.3"/> one sort or another we're not quite sure <pause dur="2.3"/> and anyway in the long term it can't be sustainable can it to keep losing species <pause dur="0.2"/> all the time <pause dur="2.8"/> that's the argument <pause dur="1.2"/>

okay why else are these <pause dur="1.2"/> ecological resources <pause dur="0.6"/> valuable to us <pause dur="0.2"/> useful to us </u><pause dur="4.2"/><u who="sf0655" trans="pause"> something might have <pause dur="0.4"/> medical value</u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> something might have <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> medical value yeah we'll come on to that <pause dur="0.3"/> in a minute </u><pause dur="1.7"/> <u who="sm0654" trans="pause"> part of the food chain</u><pause dur="2.6"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> <trunc>y</trunc> part of the food chain in what regard </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm0654" trans="pause"> we might not directly eat it but it keeps the nutrients part of the the the food chain</u><u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> yeah okay <pause dur="0.3"/> okay so it's important <pause dur="0.6"/> maybe to fish stocks or <pause dur="0.3"/> whatever yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>o</trunc> okay yeah that's <pause dur="1.1"/> that's certainly true <pause dur="0.4"/> anything else </u><pause dur="2.0"/> <u who="sf0656" trans="pause"> maintain like woodlands and grass and </u> <pause dur="3.0"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah is that different from the <trunc>en</trunc> environmental stability do you mean something different than <pause dur="0.5"/> just environmental stability is there </u><u who="sf0656" trans="latching"> no i suppose that's <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u> <pause dur="1.8"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> well maybe it's part of this the direct returns bit <pause dur="0.5"/> we get all sorts of direct returns don't we <pause dur="0.7"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> ecological <pause dur="0.3"/> resources <pause dur="5.0"/> so we pick berries <pause dur="0.2"/> we harvest <pause dur="0.6"/> wildlife for meat and <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah so loads of <pause dur="0.6"/> different sorts of direct returns <pause dur="1.7"/> and as well and <trunc>th</trunc> this is the thing i thought you were getting at <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> was # <pause dur="1.8"/> there's a visual a

landscape an amenity aspect to many of these resources <pause dur="0.4"/> game reserves bring in tourists in Kenya or wherever <pause dur="0.6"/> # and so on often <pause dur="0.2"/> you know <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> these ecosystems mean that <pause dur="0.2"/> there's a nice landscape that we enjoy <pause dur="0.9"/> and so on <pause dur="5.0"/> you talked about <pause dur="0.2"/> # advances <pause dur="0.5"/> in medicine and so on well <pause dur="0.2"/> you know these species are an important source of genetic <pause dur="0.3"/> material they're genetic reserves <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe that elusive cure for a certain disease is <pause dur="0.8"/> # you know <pause dur="0.5"/> the secret is locked up in one of these species that are threatened <pause dur="3.0"/> or maybe there's some genetic material that we can use for something else <pause dur="0.8"/> who knows i mean these days with biotechnology <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> who knows what's going to be possible in the future <pause dur="0.4"/> this is one of our many areas of uncertainty for resource use isn't it <pause dur="0.2"/> technology <pause dur="3.7"/> okay education and <pause dur="0.7"/> research <pause dur="3.4"/> value to us <pause dur="1.6"/> and what do you think about this economists <pause dur="0.6"/> often talk about existence value <pause dur="1.6"/> and i question whether it <pause dur="2.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>itself<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> exists <pause dur="0.4"/> # the idea of existence value that a species has a value to us <pause dur="1.5"/> just

because it exists <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't matter if if it doesn't have any of these <pause dur="1.1"/> benefits necessarily <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's important</u><u who="sm0657" trans="latching"> intrinsic worth </u> <pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> exactly has this intrinsic worth <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not because it has any <pause dur="0.5"/> real necessarily any tangible benefit to it <pause dur="1.0"/> we should keep it because it exists and we shouldn't get rid of it <pause dur="2.7"/> whether that is really <pause dur="1.0"/> just because it exists <pause dur="0.2"/> or actually whether it's because of <pause dur="0.5"/> one or more of these things <pause dur="1.4"/> yeah the possibility <pause dur="0.8"/> you know it's useful as a genetic reserve <pause dur="0.5"/> # maybe it contributes to environmental stability <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what i question i think <pause dur="3.9"/> i think <pause dur="0.2"/> probably what we're saying when we talk about existence value <pause dur="0.3"/> is that all species have a value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> because maybe <pause dur="1.2"/> it's important for environmental stability <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe in the future it could add to our direct returns <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe it could <pause dur="0.3"/> be important genetic material that we'll use in the future and so on <pause dur="2.3"/> but you will come across this this term existence value <pause dur="0.2"/> in the literature <pause dur="2.0"/> and i think in in a

future session you're probably going to talk about it a little bit more with with <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="12.4"/> okay so we've been getting into sort of looking at some data and <pause dur="0.3"/> considering the more practical aspects if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # natural resource use <pause dur="0.4"/> and the environment <pause dur="0.7"/> # what i want to do now is to get back to a little bit of economics <pause dur="1.6"/> because one of the things that we've nearly that that we've never <pause dur="0.3"/> actually got straight <pause dur="1.5"/> is well what sort of economic framework <pause dur="0.4"/> do we need <pause dur="1.2"/> in order <pause dur="0.2"/> for us to # decide on <pause dur="0.4"/> the best use of resources <pause dur="2.3"/> <trunc>d</trunc> i didn't give this to you last time did i <pause dur="0.5"/> no <pause dur="1.3"/> it's just a copy of the overhead that i'm going to <pause dur="0.5"/> put up in the screen <pause dur="0.8"/> in a moment and it just saves you from having to get it down <pause dur="5.5"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> lots of take-aways let's pass them along please <pause dur="21.3"/> so let me remind you about some very basic economics <pause dur="1.0"/> that hopefully you haven't forgotten but i <pause dur="0.4"/> thought i ought to remind you anyway <pause dur="3.5"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> so now what we're trying to do is determine the optimum use <pause dur="1.1"/> of a resource <pause dur="1.5"/> and we assume that our aim is to

maximize the net benefit to society <pause dur="2.8"/> now we know that governments and so on don't necessarily actually have that aim but let's assume that that's what we want to do <pause dur="0.3"/> to maximize the net benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> to society <pause dur="0.3"/> from the use of our resource <pause dur="1.3"/> so on the Y-axis here <pause dur="0.4"/> we have <pause dur="0.5"/> the benefits and costs <pause dur="0.5"/> associated <pause dur="0.3"/> with using the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> in pounds <pause dur="4.5"/> on the X-axis we have the amount <pause dur="0.2"/> of the resource <pause dur="3.6"/> that we're using <pause dur="2.0"/> so if you look at <pause dur="0.6"/> the total <pause dur="0.2"/> social benefit curve <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> T-S-B total social benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> you can see <pause dur="0.9"/> that as we use more and more of the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> our total social benefit increases and increases <pause dur="0.8"/> i've assumed diminishing marginal returns <pause dur="0.3"/> in that it actually starts to tail off <pause dur="0.6"/> or diminishing utility <pause dur="1.3"/> that may not be true it could be a straight line <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't matter <pause dur="0.2"/> for this analysis <pause dur="2.9"/> okay so <pause dur="0.6"/> the benefit increases <pause dur="0.9"/> as we use more and more of the resource <pause dur="4.3"/> here we've got the costs <pause dur="0.2"/> associated with using the resource <pause dur="0.5"/> the costs of mining it <pause dur="1.5"/> using it to produce whatever we we

want from the resource energy from fossil fuels whatever <pause dur="0.8"/> and so here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> what i've called the total private cost so it's the cost to to industry <pause dur="1.0"/> of <pause dur="1.1"/> using the resource <pause dur="0.5"/> and here you can see again <pause dur="0.4"/> we've got increasing <pause dur="0.6"/> costs <pause dur="0.7"/> we we're assuming diminishing marginal returns increasing costs <pause dur="0.5"/> per unit <pause dur="0.2"/> of resource <pause dur="0.2"/> are assumed <pause dur="3.7"/> so the greatest benefit <pause dur="0.8"/> the greatest net benefit that we can achieve <pause dur="1.5"/> is the biggest difference isn't it between <pause dur="0.7"/> total social benefits <pause dur="0.5"/> and total social costs <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah that's the biggest net benefit <pause dur="1.6"/> so at this level here that is the optimum level <pause dur="0.4"/> of our resource <pause dur="1.9"/> that's the level at which we maximize the net benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> to society <pause dur="1.4"/> and if it was a private firm that we were talking about <pause dur="0.6"/> yeah that would be the profit maximizing position wouldn't it <pause dur="2.1"/> and of course the profit maximizing position <pause dur="0.4"/> is where <pause dur="0.4"/> marginal costs <pause dur="3.7"/> equal marginal benefit <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah so they're just the <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal curves <pause dur="1.0"/> straight lines in fact <pause dur="0.2"/> that go with these <pause dur="0.5"/> total curves <pause dur="1.2"/> so here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal social benefit curve <pause dur="1.3"/> yeah which is declining <pause dur="2.0"/> like a demand curve <pause dur="1.7"/> and here we have the marginal private cost curve <pause dur="1.1"/>

like a supply curve <pause dur="4.2"/> and here's our optimum level <pause dur="0.4"/> of resource and i've got here for example barrels of oil <pause dur="0.5"/> so at level Q that level of use of oil <pause dur="1.4"/> is where we maximize you can see here the net benefit to society <pause dur="1.1"/> and if we wanted to bring that allocation about <pause dur="0.8"/> the market would do it for us if it was a perfect market <pause dur="0.6"/> it would price <pause dur="0.4"/> these barrels of oil at P <pause dur="0.2"/> each <pause dur="1.6"/> yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> and that would be <pause dur="0.4"/> # a perfect allocation of resources <pause dur="2.7"/> maximize net benefit to society great <pause dur="0.3"/> easy <pause dur="5.2"/> the problem is as we said <pause dur="0.5"/> is that our simple economic framework <pause dur="1.0"/> has in the past <pause dur="0.5"/> failed to take account of things like environmental pollution <pause dur="2.3"/> these we said we consider as externalities <pause dur="0.7"/> to the production system <pause dur="1.7"/> so what happens if we <pause dur="1.5"/> try to take account of these <pause dur="1.6"/> externalities <pause dur="8.4"/><kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> what we're saying then <pause dur="1.3"/> is that our private cost curve <pause dur="0.9"/> the costs of getting that oil out of the ground <pause dur="0.4"/> and the costs of <pause dur="1.1"/>

getting it into a form where we can burn it in our cars and get energy <pause dur="0.2"/> for instance <pause dur="1.6"/> is actually not the true cost of using that resource <pause dur="2.2"/> because for instance <pause dur="1.8"/> our cars pollute the atmosphere <pause dur="1.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> an external <pause dur="0.6"/> cost <pause dur="0.5"/> is borne by third parties <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe you or i walking along <pause dur="0.2"/> inhaling fumes and our health suffers <pause dur="1.9"/> or maybe global warming <pause dur="0.4"/> whatever <pause dur="1.8"/> so there's an external cost <pause dur="0.8"/> that falls on other people in society <pause dur="2.0"/> than the oil companies <pause dur="0.3"/> and just the people that drive their cars there are other people that <pause dur="0.5"/> bear the costs <pause dur="0.2"/> as well <pause dur="1.4"/> so these external costs then <pause dur="0.2"/> have to be taken into account <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to get the total social cost <pause dur="0.4"/> of resource use <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than just the private cost <pause dur="2.0"/> so this green curve suitably green <pause dur="0.8"/> curve here <pause dur="3.0"/> has taken account of the negative externalities like environmental pollution <pause dur="0.4"/> associated with using the resource <pause dur="0.9"/> and you can see the cost curve <pause dur="0.6"/> has shifted upwards <pause dur="7.5"/> now if we use this cost curve <pause dur="0.3"/> instead of the private cost curve <pause dur="0.2"/> to look at the optimum use of our

resource <pause dur="0.6"/> you can see that the optimum <pause dur="0.5"/> changes <pause dur="1.1"/> and net benefit to society from using the resource <pause dur="0.3"/> is actually achieved at a lower level <pause dur="0.2"/> of resource use here <pause dur="1.0"/> than previously <pause dur="2.5"/> and if we look at the marginal <pause dur="0.3"/> cost and marginal benefit curves <pause dur="0.7"/> we can see that <pause dur="0.9"/> perhaps even more clearly <pause dur="4.9"/> so now we have the marginal <pause dur="0.2"/> social cost curve <pause dur="1.6"/> added <pause dur="0.7"/> to this diagram same diagram as before <pause dur="0.2"/> we've just added <pause dur="1.1"/> this green marginal social cost curve <pause dur="2.7"/> yeah which is the slope isn't it these marginal curves <pause dur="0.2"/> are the slope the rate of change <pause dur="0.4"/> of these total curves yeah <pause dur="0.8"/> so that's the slope <pause dur="0.5"/> of this curve <pause dur="3.2"/> yeah so you can see that the slope is <pause dur="1.1"/> increasing and hence this marginal social cost curve <pause dur="0.7"/> is increasing <pause dur="3.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the optimum use of our resource that was at Q <pause dur="0.8"/> now that we've taken account of the negative environmental externalities <pause dur="0.3"/> associated with the use of this resource <pause dur="0.4"/> our optimum <pause dur="0.2"/> is actually not at Q <pause dur="0.7"/> yeah we've been using too much of this resource <pause dur="0.2"/> it's actually <pause dur="0.4"/> here <pause dur="1.0"/> at Q-dashed <pause dur="0.2"/> in green <pause dur="4.9"/> so in

order <pause dur="0.3"/> this diagram is telling us in order <pause dur="0.3"/> to maximize the net benefit to society <pause dur="0.3"/> we need to cut back <pause dur="0.5"/> on current usage of oil <pause dur="0.3"/> and use a little bit less of it <pause dur="4.1"/> and again that point is shown <pause dur="0.9"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> where the marginal social cost curve <pause dur="0.9"/> cuts the marginal social benefit curve <pause dur="4.6"/> the other thing this diagram tells you <pause dur="0.8"/> is that where the price of oil <pause dur="0.2"/> before <pause dur="0.6"/> was price P <pause dur="1.1"/> if you want to bring about <pause dur="1.9"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> environmentally-friendly <pause dur="0.4"/> maximum <pause dur="0.3"/> benefit to society <pause dur="0.7"/> you've got to change the price of oil <pause dur="1.1"/> and the price that'll bring about this level of resource use <pause dur="0.5"/> again is where <pause dur="0.7"/> the marginal curves <pause dur="0.3"/> cross <pause dur="0.3"/> which this time now is P-dashed <pause dur="0.9"/> so this is telling you if you want to bring about <pause dur="0.6"/> this allocation of resources within society <pause dur="0.3"/> you're going to have to increase the price of oil <pause dur="0.4"/> to consumers <pause dur="0.4"/> from P <pause dur="0.4"/> to

P-dashed <pause dur="2.1"/> because the market won't do that <pause dur="0.3"/> the market will set the price at P <pause dur="2.3"/> so one of the things <pause dur="0.2"/> for instance that you might want to do <pause dur="0.2"/> is to place an environmental tax <pause dur="0.5"/> on oil <pause dur="0.4"/> so that the price people pay isn't P <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's P-dashed <pause dur="2.1"/> and that's is one of the things that <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> is going to talk to you about <pause dur="0.9"/> # in future weeks <pause dur="5.7"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/> are there any questions about that diagram i i think it's fairly simple and straightforward <pause dur="0.4"/> you should have seen diagrams like this before <pause dur="1.9"/> but are there any questions <pause dur="2.1"/> because it's important that <trunc>y</trunc> that you understand it at this simplistic stage <pause dur="0.3"/> before you do any further theory <pause dur="8.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> i can see you're totally exhausted from the experience of doing a bit more economic theory <pause dur="0.5"/> so i think let's call it a day shall we <pause dur="1.0"/> okay and next week <pause dur="0.4"/> will be will be <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/>

</u></body></text>

</TEI.2>