[stretchwithme]

There are only finite natural resources if you're talking about a fixed number of atoms of each variety being available on the earth, but we don't have finite resources. We are creating new things all the time that lessen our need to consume natural resources. And if we stopped subsidizing consumption, we'd see even more such creativity.

Any natural resource that gets scarcer even as demand for it increases naturally gets more expensive. This gives people incentives to avoid its use, either by being more efficient or substituting alternatives.

This has even worked for land itself. As land gets more expensive as more people wish to live in an urban area, buildings add stories, using the same land over and over again.

[tome]

As use of a resource becomes more efficient the rate of consupmtion actually increases not decreases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[stretchwithme]

It is true that when a resource is difficult to use and produces little, its not in great demand. And when more efficient and productive ways to use it are found, the resource is more widely used.

But this doesn't mean that it will not become more expensive as it gets used up and more careful use of it will be made. Human nature will continue to function.

[danielharan]

It's an unproven proposition, and usually only applied to industry. If my refrigerator is more efficient, I won't buy a second one. A more efficient car might give me an incentive to drive more, but that seems really marginal.

[eru]

People who hadn't brought refrigerators before, might be a first one, though. And if there are extremely efficient, we might even switch to living inside refrigerators [1] in summer.

[1] Some people already do.