Reflections on the Oil Depletion Controversy

Patrik Söderholm
{"title":"Reflections on the Oil Depletion Controversy","authors":"Patrik Söderholm","doi":"10.1080/14041040310017761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This comment provides some reflections on the oil depletion controversy in the recent issue of Minerals & Energy . Scientific controversies are generally a good thing as they fuel fruitful deliberations within the scientific community, but in this particular case the controversy has been far from fruitful. This is partly due to a lack of interest among some of the participants to attempt to understand and even discuss the approach and the standpoints of the opponents, not the least among the Natural Scientists represented by Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell. Economic analysis, which clearly is under attack in the latter's article, can clearly not replace natural science but it is essential for understanding resource depletion. This comment provides a number of examples illustrating: (a) why this is the case; and (b) that Aleklett and Campbell often misinterpret the essence of economic analysis. Finally, the comment briefly addresses an important moral and ethical issue that was not touched upon in the ab...","PeriodicalId":351922,"journal":{"name":"Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oil, Gas & Energy Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14041040310017761","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This comment provides some reflections on the oil depletion controversy in the recent issue of Minerals & Energy . Scientific controversies are generally a good thing as they fuel fruitful deliberations within the scientific community, but in this particular case the controversy has been far from fruitful. This is partly due to a lack of interest among some of the participants to attempt to understand and even discuss the approach and the standpoints of the opponents, not the least among the Natural Scientists represented by Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell. Economic analysis, which clearly is under attack in the latter's article, can clearly not replace natural science but it is essential for understanding resource depletion. This comment provides a number of examples illustrating: (a) why this is the case; and (b) that Aleklett and Campbell often misinterpret the essence of economic analysis. Finally, the comment briefly addresses an important moral and ethical issue that was not touched upon in the ab...
对石油枯竭争议的反思
这一评论对最近一期《矿物与能源》上关于石油枯竭的争论提供了一些思考。科学争议通常是一件好事,因为它们推动了科学界卓有成效的讨论,但在这个特殊的案例中,争议远没有取得成果。这部分是由于一些参与者对试图理解甚至讨论反对者的方法和立场缺乏兴趣,尤其是以Kjell Aleklett和Colin Campbell为代表的自然科学家。在后者的文章中,经济分析显然受到了攻击,它显然不能取代自然科学,但它对于理解资源枯竭是必不可少的。本评论提供了一些例子来说明:(a)为什么会这样;(b)阿列克谢特和坎贝尔经常误解经济分析的本质。最后,这篇评论简要地提到了一个重要的道德和伦理问题,这在文章中没有涉及到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信