ou, de um modo mais combativo, como ideias feitas são, frequentemente, ideias parvas, em particular quanto se referem ao pretenso "esgotamento" de recursos naturais. Vem isto a propósito deste artigo (via Carpe Diem) onde se volta a evocar o princípio segundo o qual "Peak oil is peak idiocy", desta vez com a forte e continuada inversão da tendência decrescente de extracção de petróleo na província de Alberta no Canadá.
Mas, porque a evidência empírica tanta vez nos engana (as denominadas não-evidências) vale a pena explicitar uma vez mais o raciocínio económico daquele princípio. Explorando os links acima, fui dar com este post ("Peak idiocy"), de Mike Munger (aka Mungowitz), que o explica de forma cristalina (realces meus):
«Of all the idiotic things that people believe, the whole "peak oil" thing has to be right up there. It is literally impossible for us to run out of oil. We have never run out of anything, and we never will.
If we did start to use up the oil we have...(though, counting shale oil, we still haven't used even 10% of the total KNOWN reserves on earth, and there are lots of places we haven't looked)...but suppose we were on our way to using it up. Three things would happen.
1. Prices would rise, causing people to cut back on use. More fuel effcient cars, better insulation on houses, etc. Quantity demanded goes down.
2. Prices would rise, causing people to look for more. And they would find more oil, and more ways to get at it. Quantity supplied goes up.
3. Prices of oil would rise, making the search for substitutes more profitable. At that point (though not now!) alternative fuels and energy sources would be economical, and would not require gubmint subsidies, because they would pay for themselves. The supply curve for substitutes shifts downward and to the right.
This is econ 101. Even Paul ("I sold my soul to become a wanker") Krugman would credit this scenario.»