Talk:Resource
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Rewording necessary under "Types of values attatched to resources"
This section seems very unspecific and somewhat opinionated (for lack of a better word). I think the section is important to the article but it needs extensive rewording to be of a fact-based, encylopedic quality. Noz92 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
This page is a good start to cover the facts which are applicable to resources in general. Therefore the confusing (types and developments) should go. Inwind (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- This page has been moved from "Resource (types and developments)" to Resource as the result of a move proposal listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reserve vs resource. Importance
In Norwegian, both in economy and ecology, we distinguishes between “ressurs” (resource) and “reserve” (reserve) for non-renewable resources.
“Ressurs” (resource) is the total resources of the actual item – actual plus potential resources in terms of the article.
“Reserve” (reserve) is the known part of the resource that at the given moment also is economically exploitable. This means of course that the mount of reserves not are fixed, as abiotic resources are, reserves varies with prospecting, extraction and production costs and prices of the product.
For non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, minerals e.g.) on often use the R/P-rate (reserve by production per period) which gives the number of periods the reserve will last, prices, production costs and resources fixed.
Does one not have the same terminology in English, or should this article be amended with the definitions above?
I mean that the importance of the term in ecology is "mid" (or may be "high"). For environmental and economical issues, I mean it is very important and should be rated high. That it is rated "mid" in economy, maybe reflects that economists seems to forget that, basically, the economy is dependent of natural resources? But it may ned more depth first, may be?
Carl S. Bj (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Resource use
It can be mentioned that 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources ref= http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/other/DTIx0601xPA/docs/en/Module2%20-%20Session1.ppt
[edit] basic definition of resource
disagree with the initial basic definition "A resource is any physical or virtual entity of limited availability that needs to be consumed to obtain a benefit from it."
- surely resources can provide benefit without (the resource) being consumed
- the definition of 'consumption' is in contradiction with later paragraph of same article where value of resources is discussed (eg. beauty of natural resources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.29.7.87 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Add reference to Planetary boundaries?
Add reference to Planetary boundaries. 99.181.159.67 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
