23 May 2012

Global Scarcity: Scramble for Dwindling Natural Resources

National security expert Michael Klare believes the struggle for the world’s resources will be one of the defining political and environmental realities of the 21st century. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he discusses the threat this scramble poses to the natural world and what can be done to sustainably meet the resource challenge.
By diane toomey

Michael Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, devotes much of his time these days to thinking about the intensifying competition for increasingly scarce natural resources. His most recent book, The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources, describes how the world economy has entered a period of what he calls “tough” extraction for energy, minerals, and other commodities, meaning that the easy-to-get resources have been exploited and a rapidly growing population is now turning to resources in the planet’s most remote regions — the Arctic, the deep ocean, and war zones like Afghanistan. The exploitation of “tough” resources, such as “fracking” for natural gas in underground shale formations, carries with it far greater environmental risk, Klare says.

Michael Klare
Michael Klare
In an interview with Yale Environment 360 contributor Diane Toomey, Klare discussed China’s surging appetite for resources, the growing potential for political and military conflict as commodities become more scarce, and the disturbing trend of the planet’s agricultural land being bought by companies and governments seeking to ensure that their people will have enough food in the future. The way to reduce resource conflicts, says Klare, is to find substitute materials and to significantly boost efficiency in a host of realms, most notably energy. Hope for the future, he says, lies with innovative entrepreneurs and, especially, the young. “They all want to be involved in developing solutions,” said Klare, “and they have a lot of optimism and enthusiasm for this.”

Yale Environment 360: You make the point that when it comes to the age-old competition for raw materials, we’re in an unprecedented age. How so?

Michael Klare: I do believe that’s the case. Humans have been struggling to gain control of vital resources since the beginning of time, but I think we’re in a new era because we’re running out of places to go. Humans have constantly moved to new areas, to new continents, when they’ve run out of things in their home territory. But there aren’t any more new continents to go to. We’re going now to the last places left on earth that haven’t been exploited: the Arctic, the deep oceans, the inner jungles in Africa, Afghanistan. There are very few places left that haven’t been fully tapped, so this is humanity’s last chance to exploit the earth, and after this there’s nowhere else to go.

e360: Natural resource extraction has never been a pretty business when it comes to the environment, but you write that now that the era of easy oil, easy gas, easy minerals and other resources is basically over, and what’s left is in deep water, remote or inhospitable climates, or in geological formations that require extraordinary means to get at. So paint me a picture of what extracting these tough resources looks like.

Klare: We’re really going to be using very aggressive means of extraction, so the environmental consequences are going to be proportionally greater. For example, to get oil and natural gas out of shale rock, you can’t just drill
Oil companies want to turn this country back to what it was before environmentalism became an issue.”
and expect it to come out. It doesn’t work that way. You have to smash the rock, you have to produce fractures in the rock, and we use a very aggressive technology to do that — hydraulic fracturing — and the water is brought under tremendous pressure and it’s laced with toxic chemicals, and when the water is extracted from these wells it can’t be put back into the environment without risk of poisoning water supplies. So there’s a tremendous problem of storage, of toxic water supplies, and we really haven’t solved that problem.

And that’s just one example. Drilling in the Arctic presents a tremendous problem because the Arctic, by its very nature, is at the edge of survival and all the species there are living at the edge of survival, so any oil spill could push them over the edge into extinction. So [oil companies] must have on hand all kinds of extra capacity to deal with the possibility of spills, and that’s much more difficult to engineer than in the Gulf of Mexico, where there are tens of thousands of boats that you could hire on short notice to bring out skimmers and booms to contain a spill. There’s nothing like that in the Arctic. Moreover, if this were to happen in winter, there would be no way to move equipment up there to build a relief drill. Remember, it was a relief drill that closed the Deepwater Horizon spill, but you can’t do that in the middle of winter when the Arctic [Ocean] is covered with ice.

e360: Yet despite all that, there’s profits to be made.

Klare: There’s profits to be made, and this is particularly important to recognize — that this is attractive to the private international oil companies, like Shell, BP, and Exxon Mobil that are going into the Arctic, because they’ve been pushed out of the Middle East, Venezuela, and Russia by state-owned companies. So there are very few places where they can go and control the whole process of production, from beginning to end, and the Arctic is one of those few areas.

LISTEN: Michael Klare talks about how mining companies are exploiting one of the last protected areas of Gabon.

To listen to this content, you must have Javascript enabled in your browser preferences. You will also need to download the latest Flash Player.

There’s more to it than just that. We’re really at a turning point and I think most people in this country and around the world understand that before too long we’re going to have to transition to other types of energy if we’re to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. But the big oil companies, they only know one business, which is producing oil and natural gas and selling it in their service stations. And so they’re determined to maintain their business model as long as possible and they’re resisting the transition to alternative fuels.

e360: North America has more than its share of so-called tough oil and gas. That includes the Alberta tar sands and the shale gas fields in the U.S. that are being fracked. As energy extraction heats up in North America, you’ve written that the U.S. is in danger of becoming “a third-world petro state.” What do you mean by that?

Klare: Consider what [happened] in the 1960s and 1970s when U.S. and European oil companies moved into countries like Nigeria and Angola. You had very low government oversight of oil company operations, little or no environmental protection, a lot of corruption, so it was easy to expatriate your profits. You didn’t have to worry about labor regulations or labor unions. But now those places in the so-called Third World are becoming much tougher. They’re either nationalizing their resources or enforcing their environmental regulations or labor laws. So it’s not as profitable as it once was.

Meanwhile, in the United States, there are these formations that were once inaccessible, shale rock in particular. But to gain access to these resources in the United States and Canada it will be necessary to roll back a lot of the
A major task of China’s leadership is to scour the world for the resources they need to keep the Chinese economy growing.”
environmental protections and the labor and tax laws that were imposed over the past 50 years. So the oil companies and the gas companies really want to turn this country back to what it was before environmentalism became an issue, and make it more like the way the Third World was in the 1950s and 60s, with very lax environmental oversight and labor concerns, so that they can use the very aggressive, environmentally hazardous techniques to extract oil and gas from these tough formations.

e360: What developments can you point to that indicate that the U.S. is on the road to this?

Klare: For example, when the Bush Administration was in office, and Congress was under control of Republicans, the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydrofracking from the Clean Water Act so that oil and gas companies could use hydrofracking with toxic chemicals and were not covered by the protections that all other kinds of industrial activities in the United States are subject to.

e360: Talk about the China-African connection and how it fits into the race for what’s left.

Klare: China now is the fastest-growing world economy and it’s very manufacturing-oriented, and China is also building cities and infrastructure very rapidly. All of this is incredibly resource-intensive. They need everything: oil, natural gas, iron, copper, more exotic things for the electronics that they build, like chromium, lithium, and palladium. And eventually food, because they’re unable to produce all the food they need for their population. So one of the major tasks of the Chinese leadership is to scour the world for all the resources that they need to keep the Chinese economic machine growing, and this will only become a bigger problem the further you look into the future.

To give one example, until relatively recently, 1993, China was self-sufficient in oil production and was until very recently self-sufficient in coal. But now China has to import half of its petroleum and that will increase to three-quarters. It’s now importing coal. Now, Africa is one of those areas that the Chinese leadership sees as a prime source of raw materials, and they think they have an advantage there, because of the historic animosity of the former colonies towards the West. They come in and say, “We’re going to do things differently. We’re not going to plunder your resources the way the imperialists did. We’re going to do this in a more cooperative fashion, so turn to us, let us develop your resources, and we’ll help develop your country.” And they’re making a tremendous pitch to extract all of Africa’s resources.

e360: And that promise to be the kinder, gentler extractor? What’s your take on that?

Klare: Opinions are divided on how realistic this promise that China is making of offering development to Africa is. To what degree is this really just the icing on the cake, when really they are no different from the European imperial powers in their drive to plunder Africa for their own benefit? They are building railroads and roads. But are the roads and
The price of things will rise and that will create hardship in people’s lives, and we’re seeing that today.”
railroads merely to facilitate the shipment of the iron ore and the copper ore to the coast to be put on ships to be carried to China? That’s the way it looks to me, more and more. Moreover, typically the Chinese say, “Well, we will build all of these facilities, new ports and railroads.” But typically they insist that Chinese state-owned companies build the railroads, ports, and airports. They bring in Chinese workers who live in self-contained compounds. They don’t offer jobs to local people, and so they’re creating a lot of resentment to China, just as there was once towards western imperialist exporters.

e360: Minerals, including lithium and platinum, get a lot of attention in your book. These are minerals with industrial, military, and commercial applications. It seems that the difference between easy access minerals and tough access minerals is not the extraction method but the degree of remoteness, military conflict, and regime volatility that companies have to contend with.

Klare: Well, yes, it’s a combination of all of those. The good, easy mining ores are largely gone now. So you have two choices. You can use more aggressive means to exploit the same old mines — tearing mountains apart they way they do in Chile and Indonesia for copper, where the mines are so vast you could see them from space, and you’re getting less and less desirable ores and so you have to treat them more with arsenic and other poisons. The consequences to the environment are therefore greater. So that’s one option. The other options are to go to the Arctic, and they are talking about producing some of these minerals in Greenland. For the first time, they’re moving into Nunavut, the native lands in Canada, far above the Arctic Circle, to get iron ore.

And the other possibility is to go to places you stayed away from because they were dangerous, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or now Afghanistan. Many people believe that Afghanistan has a tremendous treasure trove of valuable minerals: copper, iron, lithium, rare earths, and if you’re prepared to bring in an army to protect them, there’s a lot of minerals there.
e360: And then there are the rare earth elements, with names that are difficult to pronounce, like scandium and promethium. Our cell phones and laptops are chock full of some of these substances and demand is expected to skyrocket over the next few years. But right now, China is just about the only country producing them. Is that going to change, and if so, what are the environmental implications?

LISTEN: Michael Klare on how new technologies increasingly rely on rare earth minerals.

To listen to this content, you must have Javascript enabled in your browser preferences. You will also need to download the latest Flash Player.

Klare: Well, the thing about rare earths that I learned is that they’re not exactly rare as a percent of the earth’s crust, but they’re not found in concentrated nodes. They tend to be found with a lot of other things, including typically radioactive materials. So you have to separate them from other minerals you don’t want. China has taken over production of most of the rare earths. They have the concentrations and they are willing to overlook the environmental consequences. A lot of this is in inner Mongolia, and they are trying to promote economic development there. And from what I understand, it’s resulted in terrible environmental devastation of the surrounding agricultural areas that have been poisoned with the tailings from this rare earth production. But it was not because they had more of the minerals, but because they were willing to overlook the environmental hazards involved. Now they’re tightening up on their controls, and so the supply has gotten tighter.

e360: It seems that one could argue that it’s not the running out of resources that we have to fear, but rather the environmental cost of obtaining them.

Klare: There are several things happening all at once. There is the future point down the road where things really will be very scarce, and then civilization as we know it will collapse, unless between now and then we develop new ways of living. I’m talking about something that could happen
The young know the bad news already and they’re determined to do something about it.”
in 2050 or farther down the pike. Oil will run out. But between now and then, we will have other problems. The price of things will rise and that will create everyday hardship in people’s lives and we’re seeing that today. But we’ll also see conflict arising in this race for what’s left. We’re already seeing signs of that in many places, for example, in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, as China and its neighbors are increasingly using military force to exert their claims over undersea reserves of oil and natural gas. So there will be many consequences to this final stage in humanity’s struggle to gain control over vital resources.

e360: There’s a relatively new phenomenon in which countries, mainly in the Persian Gulf, are buying up farmland in poor countries to grow crops for consumption at home. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been buying up land in Sudan and Ethiopia. How have we come to a point where farmland has become a global commodity?

Klare: You know, I can’t help but think that there’s something very cynical and ugly about all of this, but a lot of the people who are in this business, they talk about Malthus, future population growth, starvation, climate change, all of these things making food the most precious commodity of the future — that whoever possesses land to grow food will be the rich people of the future. That’s the pitch that they make to investors, and it is based on the notion that people will be starving and desperate for food. Now, there are a second group of investors, those from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and so on, who say that we will not be able to feed our future population, and so therefore we will buy farmland in foreign countries to grow food exclusively for our own population, irrespective of the needs of the people who live in the food-growing areas. They’ll have to fend for themselves, but we’ll provide for our own people. And this, too, derives from very nightmarish scenarios of what we’ll see in the future.


Leveling Appalachia: The Legacy
Of Mountaintop Removal Mining

Video Leveling Appalachia: The Legacy of Mountaintop Removal Mining
This video report produced by Yale Environment 360 in collaboration with MediaStorm takes a first-hand look at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and what is at stake for the region’s environment and its people.
e360: You say that to head off the global nightmare for the race for what’s left that we’ll need to engage in a race to adapt, and that includes finding substitute materials, improving efficiency. When I read this part of your book, I was rather surprised at its optimistic tone. You say you see signs that we’re already in the race to adapt. Talk to me about that.

Klare: Being around students, they think they know the bad news already and they’re determined to do something about it. They want to be in the solutions business. I think this is a universal phenomenon around the world because I have students in my classes from virtually every continent now, and they all want to be involved in developing solutions, and they have a lot of optimism and enthusiasm for this. So it’s partly that energy that I’m feeling from my students and young people about the possibilities of positive change. And then I see that there are entrepreneurs who are coming up with very creative solutions to the problems I describe, who are creating the alternative modes of producing energy and using materials more efficiently. And I think that with time they will gain momentum.


Diane Toomey, who conducted this interview for Yale Environment 360, is an award-winning public radio journalist who has worked at Marketplace, the World Vision Report and Living on Earth, where she was the science editor. She also has reported on science, medicine and the environment for WUNC, the public radio station in Chapel Hill, N.C.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


Keynes or Rothbard? Here we are again. Does humanity allow the plutocrats....err i mean Yale grads, to allocate resources for us. I'm sure their intelligence and superior education will lead us to utopia. Let's redistribute the earth's resources.

Oh... but wait. The point of this article is that there are not enough resources to create a fair and even utopia. Unfair? My goodness. Well at least Democratic Populism will save us. We will all vote. The whole planet will vote to allocate resources. But what about those pesky limited resources. They are soo hard to extract. So expensive to attain. Oh... thats ok. Our omnipotent plutocratic brothers and sisters will just print more money. Oh but who wants cheap resources anyway. Those resources have a negative environmental impact. We must plan a perfect environment. That way we can all vote on it. Thats right. We need plutocratic environmentalists to plan a perfect environment. Oh but wait. A pristine perfect environment doesnt seem to include any people. I mean they exhale CO2. And worse, methane is released from their bowels. They alter and ruin the natural biosphere around them.

It seems to me, that the real issue isnt resources. Its not really about the environment. No, no. Its plutocratic guilt.

These resources are limited, no matter what system is distributing them. And no matter how we alter the method of showing these resources' value, they will still have that value. Their value isnt theory. Their value IS the reason for an uneven distribution of wealth. That is to say that no matter what system regulates them, some will benefit from their value, and others will not. No matter what the plan is. and btw the plan usually seems to benefit the planners.

This brings me to individualism. And liberty. The argument, that my singular actions effect others, and therefore should be controlled by a more genectically superior... er i mean financially superior, err.. uh wait i mean fair and equal society... is utterly corrupt. Resources will always have a greater value to those directly possessing them. No amount of planning, no amount of redistribution, and no amount of debate will change that.

So. Let the serfs decide for themselves. If harm is done to others.. or more importantly to others 'property', hold them accountable. When government is small, and protects the individual, property is respected, and the average property owners are able to hold accountable, any wrongdoings done to them by someone else's actions. If people are directly accountable to THEIR property, they will protect it. Environmentally, and otherwise.

If you take the ability of the serf to have property away, tell him or her he doesnt have the knowledge to manage it. That his genetics are inferior and his unmanaged actions a complete detriment to the earth and mankind, What do you have left? ... a king on the throne. A cartel in total control of government... and absolutely no checks to the future mismanagement by those same plutocrats that are hell bent on saving us all.

Posted by Caloot on 23 May 2012

I like what you are saying Caloot. By this logic you would be a real advocate for Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples right to say no to environmentally destructive developments on their land. We should not ... tell him he doesn't have the knowledge to manage his land... You are right about people being accountable to their land — native people do try to protect their property from environmental destruction in many cases. But it is the conservative politicians that try to take away this right to manage their land.

I know you were not talking about indigenous people but I thought it was an interesting point you made that would defend native land rights, even though you seem to have a conservative perspective.

Posted by Melissa P on 24 May 2012

Melissa, methinks you plucked a fine looking diamond from Caloot's pile, and though a good one, a false one. Because either ascribing for or against native land (and water) rights, there's war — for those resources, at some point in time. Who controls and provides the legal authority for maintaining such rights? Those with the most power, cunning and weapons. And, regardless of one's politics, Nature wins and civilizations will kill each other and die off.

We can (and must, if we're at all moral) aspire towards regimenting unending aspirations, violence and greed, but despite any such activities, at various tipping points, human abilities to contain endless desires for control and growth and kingdom defeats us — all of us. The Tragedy of The Commons is that multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. The over- population problem has no technical solution, despite Libertarian or Democratic or Republican or any class jockeying to the contrary.

Posted by Paul van Winkle on 30 May 2012

The three comments above assume that there will be no change in people's lifestyles. But I see no reason for this assumption.

Unexpected changes happen frequently. At the height of the smoking epidemic, few thought that a popular campaign to legislate against cigarette ads, as well as against the smoking lifestyle could reduce smoking as dramatically as it did.

Occupy Wall Street(OWS) seemed to come from nowhere. A development of OWS, or some similar movement, could well be the result and the cause of evolved social ideas about how to live in a responsible beautiful and sustainable way.

So the combination of strategic legislation and cultural change is a possibility, even a probability. There are armies of individuals and organizations moving in that direction, and they are likely to coalesce into ever stronger movements toward simplification and fairness. Much of the Third World have relevant values that merely need to be highlighted and promoted. The indigenous world is already staunchly allied to such a value system.

As much as I'm tired of the proposing of individual action as a solution to collective problems, I think there is a lot to be said for it. Assuming that there is such a thing as the collective unconscious, individuals being passionately involved in living sustainably, especially in an age where they can communicate widely, have a very good chance of coming together in dramatic and novel ways that will change global expectations and values. America is at the ideal juncture for engaging in and leading such a revolution.

Posted by Trevor Burrowes on 30 May 2012

I too personally and socially live "sustainably", and actually work in the sector. I never smoked,
eat a balanced organic diet, exercise regularly, compost, grow food, reduce electricity use, limit
travel and consumption, share, read extensively, and work towards peace. And I'm not who we're talking about. To use your example, worldwide, between 80,000 and 100,000 kids start smoking every day. Approximately one quarter of children alive in the Western Pacific Region will die from smoking. The World Health Organization compiled worldwide smoking statistics for the year 2002.

Despite all illusions and wishes, the actual smoking facts and stats are sobering. About a third of the male adult global population smokes. Smoking-related diseases kill one in 10 adults globally, or cause four million deaths. By 2030, if current trends continue, smoking will kill one in six people. Despite decades of warnings. Every eight seconds, someone dies from tobacco use. Smoking is on the rise in the developing world while falling in developed nations. In the developing world, tobacco consumption is rising 3.4 percent per year. About 15 billion cigarettes are sold daily — 10 million every minute. About 12 times more British have died from smoking than from World War II. Cigarettes (still) cause more than one in five American deaths. The Western Pacific Region — (East Asia and the Pacific) — has the highest smoking rate, with nearly two-thirds of men smoking. About one in three cigarettes are consumed in the Western Pacific Region.

The tobacco market is controlled by just a few corporations, all American, British and Japanese
multinational conglomerates. They have no intention of suggesting that smoking cessation should be promoted. I think the example aptly exposes the myth that human natures are able to deliver the restraints necessary to abate the increasing destructions we humans are waging on the planet. Americans being perhaps some of the least equipped thanks to decades of consumption patterns and unconsciousness.

Ironically, the environment might in fact be better off had our countrymen continued smoking.

Posted by Paul van Winkle on 31 May 2012

Mr. Klare is wrong on one point. Regarding the drilling of oil and gas wells in the Arctic in the winter, Mr. Klare obviously hasn't ever watched the Ice Road Truckers program on the History Channel. The oil and gas wells in the Arctic are almost exclusively drilled on ocean ice during the winter.

Posted by Matt Bernau on 10 Jun 2012



The Haunting Legacy of South Africa’s Gold Mines
Thousands of abandoned gold mines are scattered across South Africa, polluting the water with toxics and filling the air with noxious dust. For the millions of people who live around these derelict sites, the health impacts can be severe.

The Wild Alaskan Lands at Stake If the Pebble Mine Moves Ahead


Drive to Mine the Deep Sea Raises Concerns Over Impacts
Armed with new high-tech equipment, mining companies are targeting vast areas of the deep ocean for mineral extraction. But with few regulations in place, critics fear such development could threaten seabed ecosystems that scientists say are only now being fully understood.

Mining Showdown in Andes Over Unique Páramo Lands
High-altitude neotropical ecosystems known as páramos are increasingly at risk in Colombia and elsewhere in South America as major mining companies seek to exploit rich deposits of gold and other minerals. Such projects, scientists warn, could have serious impacts on critical water supplies.

A Scarcity of Rare Metals Is Hindering Green Technologies
A shortage of "rare earth" metals, used in everything from electric car batteries to solar panels to wind turbines, is hampering the growth of renewable energy technologies. Researchers are now working to find alternatives to these critical elements or better ways to recycle them.


Donate to Yale Environment 360