The term "projection" as used by economists means a determination of what the future course of some statistical measure (annual copper production, for instance, or average income per family) would be under a certain set of starting assumptions. The assumptions, broad or narrow, daring or cautious, always determine the result. Projections never are predictions of what is actually going to happen in the wide world of reality. Yet they can be far more than theoretical exercises. It is the extensive use of projections within a comprehensive framework that has enabled three social scientists without pretensions to the gift of prophecy to undertake an appraisal of the future adequacy of natural resources in the United States.
Why choose the end of the century as a target date? A shorter span would be safer, for the uncertainties multiply as projection is extended. But it is not so useful if the aim is to uncover possible future problems in time for people to do something about them. For example, if one cast forward only to 1980 he might conclude that the United States would not run into supply difficulties for the conventional fuels. But even a general idea of what may happen in the two following decades suggests that the nation has done well not to wail until then to begin developing clear power and the technology for using substitute sources of liquid fuels. Many resource investment decisions that will have to be made in the next few years—decisions on multiple purpose dams, launching new conservation programs, and the like—will bear fruit for the next few decades and can best be decided in an economic perspective of forty years.
In making the projections it was necessary first of all to have a working idea of what the nation's economy and society at large might be like in the year 2000 and along the way. What would the broad picture be if current trends, as modified by already discernible patterns change, remain in operation? By stating all the assumptions, and giving each step of the fairly complicated reasoning, this device conveys more than a general impression. Each conclusion can be checked back, and readers who disagree with any particular piece of data or interpretation may substitute their own.
The starting point of the calculations is the handful of over-all factors like population, labor force, and gross national product that generally indicate the size and shape of the national economy. Another key factor, the progress of technology, also has been considered here, affecting both productivity and patterns of consumption.
Then, within the limits of the total economy, one can begin to calculate levels of demand for the large categories of human needs and wants—food, clothing, shelter, heat and power, transportation, durable goods of all sorts, military equipment, outdoor recreation and other identifiable requirements of an advanced industrial society. Requirements for specific resources do not as a general rule enter the picture at this stage. Consumers—whether individuals or industries—usually are much more interested in the services obtained than in what particular product supplies them so long as they encounter no noticeable price penalties.
Next, and with much thought to the possibilities of substitution and technological change, these requirements for end products are translated into requirements for such resource products as agricultural raw materials, steel, lumber, textile fiber, and the like. From these, in turn, the converging demands on water, fuels, and other minerals estimated. Finally, these projected demands are considered in relation to availability of supply. The estimates of future availability, though generally not as elaborately worked out as the requirements projections, rest on careful analysis of evidence now at hand on the basic resources of land, water, and minerals, and the technology of getting goods and services from them. The fact that large deposits are still undiscovered adds to the uncertainties for mineral fuels and metals.
In almost all cases projections have been made at three levels—low, medium, and high—not only at the final stage but in most of the preliminary stages as well, starting with population. This has been done to discover where different basic assumptions might lead in various combinations. If even the low projection of demand indicates pressure on a certain resource product, problems of adequacy are almost certain to arise. If the high projection reveals no pressure on supply it is equally likely that there is no problem. All three levels of assumption are quite within reason, but the middle levels are considered most likely. Unless specially designated, the medium projections are the only ones cited throughout this issue of Resources.
The resource appraisal has been made on a comprehensive basis. The common body of assumptions and basic projections of population and GNP that underlies the whole study keeps the projections for particular consumer needs and particular resource demands consistent with the outlook for the entire economy. For instance, metals, lumber, and cement compete as structural materials; projected use of any one affects the projections for the other two. Because all goods and services compete for the consumer's dollar, only an overall constraint on total projected expenditure can keep the sum of the parts from exceeding the whole.
All reasonably possible advances in technology have been taken into account. This is not common practice. Because of the multitude of uncertainties, many projection-makers assume that there will be no technological change.
"We believe that in striving for the closest possible appreciation of the future, it is better to guess, even on slender evidence, than to ignore. A footloose speculation four decades ago about dieselization of the railroads would have yielded a better projection of future coal and oil demand than one based on the assumption that locomotives would forever carry boilers."
No major changes in future price relationships have been assumed beyond those that may be implicit in past and current consumption trends. That is, estimates of supply conditions have not been allowed to affect projections of requirements. This is obviously unrealistic, in contrast with the other major assumptions, particularly that of continued technological advance. Changes in relative cost and price surely will occur if a product becomes scarcer or more plentiful and thereby helps "solve" the problem by bringing supply and demand closer together by substitutions, greater investment to increase output, or other means. This one departure from realism is deliberate. The main purpose of the whole study is to test adequacy of resource supplies, not to cover up possible future trouble spots by allowing market action to adjust them automatically.
A version of this article appeared in print in the June 1963 issue of Resources magazine.
