- Email: [email protected]
Sustainable Transitions: Technology, Resources, and Society
One Earth
Previews Sustainable Transitions: Technology, Resources, and Society Joseph Sarkis1,2,* 1Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, USA Institute, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland *Correspondence: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.018 2Humlog
Sustainable transitions are highly dependent on technological solutions, yet concerns arise regarding resource scarcity and supply-chain management. In this issue of One Earth, Hao et al. provide a technological forecast for platinum-group metals (PGMs), crucial for fuel cell technology. They allay fears of untimely PGM depletion but make several important assumptions. Sustainable transitions toward a zero-carbon society are essential if we are to safeguard Earth for future generations. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2016 the transportation industry represented almost 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation transformation is clearly high on the green agenda, and such transitions tend to depend heavily on technological fixes. Indeed, the growth and development of fuel cell and electronic vehicles are key to achieving this sustainable transition. But, although these automotive technologies have implications for energy resource use and greenhouse gas emissions,1 there are consequences, unintended or not, of a dependence on technology to mitigate environmental emission concerns. Technology consumes resources, and invariably, the newer the tech, the rarer the resource. In the case of fuel cell vehicle technology, although it might be central to abating carbon emissions, it requires a scarce resource: platinum, the acquisition of which is accompanied by supply-chain risks. It must therefore be carefully considered to what extent such supply risks affect the sustainability of the new vehicular technology transition, and in turn, our ability to successfully mitigate environmental emissions. Given current technology shifts and immature recycling practices, sustainable supply and technology management are central to environmental resources and emission issues. Supply concerns for platinum-group metals (PGMs) are global, yet the sources are concentrated in fewer than a handful of countries, mostly in the politically and socially sensitive countries
South Africa and Russia. Similar issues arise for almost all products and materials that humans consume. Technological solutions requiring unique resources, in a vacuum, might seem like a panacea. Unfortunately, access to materials, processes, and other resources will nearly always have natural limits. Sustainable and green supply-chain management is complex. These supply concerns have multiple dimensions and require levels of analysis.2 Technological, economic, political, social, legal, proximal, temporal, information, and cultural boundaries range from the individual closed system to the global scale. We also know that they interact within planetary boundaries3—the perception of a technological solution can trigger consumption and behavioral change and a relaxation of mitigation efforts (see below). Natural and environmental scientists and engineers who investigate resource depletion and environmental issues tend to gravitate toward production and technological solutions. In fact, they seem to be the most practicable solution given the I = PAT equation and its variants.4 In I = PAT, the basic equation stipulates that environmental impact (I) is a function of population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T). Population and affluence are relatively socially, politically, and economically intractable. Thus, the path of least resistance is a focus on technology. In fact, ecological modernization theory fundamentally stipulates a policy that technology can help decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. Critiques of ecological modernization
48 One Earth 1, September 20, 2019 ª 2019 Elsevier Inc.
point to ‘‘rebound effects’’ and Jevons Paradox—where greater efficiencies in resources result in greater consumption and increasing pressures on the environment and the planet.5 Let’s revisit some general notions of Hao et al. in this issue of One Earth.6 Assumptions are made about technology and consumption. Both of these dimensions assume greater efficiencies through greater recycling rates and improved technology. Yet, behavior and consumption, the aspects of the rebound effect that could make these assumptions obsolete, are not examined. Consumption of automobiles and PGM resources, due to fewer boundary pressures (i.e., easily available and inexpensive PGMs), is likely to increase. Personal behavioral change could actually lead to an increase in driving as a result of a feeling of less harm to the environment through the use of electric vehicles. Some of these growth dimensions are included in the models, but alas they are only predictions. There are many predictions on both sides of the equation. Modeling the rebound effect is just as fraught with difficulties as future estimates of consumer technology and recycling patterns. Social behavior and consumption consequences should be part of any study on technological forecasting or innovation policy. The technological systems and their holistic relationship with sustainable consumption and production systems need careful examination. Innovation and technological ecosystems influence, and are influenced by, evolving socioenvironmental programs. Growth in demand is likely to occur and is a realistic
One Earth
Previews
Figure 1. Earth Overshoot Day: 1970–2019 Graphic of overshoot dates since 1970. The date represents when human annual demand exceeds Earth’s ecosystem capability to regenerate for that year. Source: Global Footprint Network National Footprint Accounts, 2019 Edition (http://data.footprintnetwork.org).
assumption, but sustainability transitions require consideration of social, behavior, and consumption transformation. When a technological solution is provided, we should also ask whether a curtailment of demand is likely to occur. This is central to the strong sustainability argument. This brings the discussion to recycling strategy, particularly circular economy (CE) thought. The CE practices and theory are still evolving. It has become an essentially contested concept7—one that has had numerous and elusive definitions and requires some careful critical examination given its underpinnings as an economic and technological solution to ensure sustainability. The CE principle is not yet at the stage to make a global difference. There are issues related to scalability, equity, and whether a spiraling down of consumption can occur. There are even some who purport that CE should be more of a spiral, less consumption economy. Hao et al., as do others, espouse that increasing recycling will address many concerns on resource limits.6 The success and scaling of CE principles are the likely assumption underlying various scenarios where recycling limits environmental resource pressures. CE as the solution raises concerns involving CE being too technology and efficiency focused, which has also been criticized as weak sustainability.8
Weak sustainability refers to efforts that consider only a portion of the problem without considering broader social and economic factors, such as attempting to address consumption and behavioral concerns and ignoring the rebound effect. The strong-sustainability perspective goes beyond technology to include the patterns of resource consumption and the size of the economy.8 The strong-sustainability goal is to incorporate a link to affluence, degrowth initiatives, and philosophies while supporting a flourishing natural environment.9 Although PGM resources seem to be healthy for the next 100 years within Earth’s limits no matter the technology or practice, the limits to growth (overshooting Earth’s capabilities) already exist for a number of Earth’s natural systems. The overshoots are substantial, such that some resource consumption is over five times that of Earth’s current life-giving systems.10 Earth Overshoot Day has become a popular media phenomenon, including Twitter handles (#MovetheDate) and even a group that calls itself ‘‘Growthbusters’’ (https://www. overshootday.org/); in 2019, the day the human population overshot the Earth’s capacity to regenerate resources in that same year was July 29 (Figure 1). We are in debt to the planet, and the tab is growing. Many, including myself, in the business, economics, and natural environment
research communities have been espousing practices such as the CE, industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis, and green supply-chain management. There are hundreds of practices and initiatives at multiple levels to address sustainable production and consumption issues. The question we need to ask and consider is whether a holistic perspective exists and should be encouraged and whether these initiatives represent strong or weak sustainability. The community faces questions of whether we can measure our progress on sustainability. Can the CE, green supply chain, and their criticisms be scientifically measured and studied as are the natural sciences? Experimentation, although espoused through adaptive environmental management principles, could help to scientifically examine the CE, the sustainable supply chain, and studies on resources conservation. Social transformations will need to be carefully planned and examined alongside these human systems and scientific contexts. The degrowth community is quite vocal in expressing consumption reduction and changing the current economic models. There have been calls for institutional change for strong sustainable consumption. Would a neo-liberal agenda help provide political legitimation to the degrowth community and strong sustainability? What are the roles of various stakeholders—governments, communities, consumers, supply chains, companies, non-governmental organizations, universities—in a weak- or strongsustainability context? Hao et al. in this issue of One Earth seek to investigate these issues. The social, political, and economic environments do not remain stable. We are living in a transitory world with a new global order (China’s efforts with its ‘‘one belt, one road’’ global trade initiative11) and postglobalization (the United States’ and United Kingdom’s protectionism and global trade barriers). The implications of these events will also influence supplychain risks and resilience. Whether these transitions have long-term sustainabilitytransition implications with environmental and natural-resource implications remains to be seen. These are not necessarily easy transitions to forecast, and any forecast regarding sustainability or One Earth 1, September 20, 2019 49
One Earth
Previews otherwise can be accurate only for a matter of weeks or months. But, using our past and current practices, we need to provide foresight for the future. Although solutions are needed and time is running out, we must ensure that we do not go forward unsustainably or blindly. We have only one Earth and only one future. REFERENCES 1. Hao, H., Geng, Y., and Sarkis, J. (2016). Carbon footprint of global passenger cars: scenarios through 2050. Energy 15, 121–131. 2. Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. 17, 202–216.
50 One Earth 1, September 20, 2019
3. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstro¨m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., et al. (2015). Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855. 4. York, R., Rosa, E.A., and Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol. Econ. 46, 351–365. 5. Jevons, W.S. (1866). The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines (Macmillan). 6. Hao, H., Geng, Y., Tate, J.E., Liu, F., Sun, X., Mu, Z., Xun, D., Liu, Z., and Zhao, F. (2019). Securing platinum-group metals for transport low-carbon transition. One Earth 1, 117–125. 7. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., and Birkie, S.E. (2018). Circular economy as an
essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 20, 544–552. 8. Lorek, S., and Spangenberg, J.H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy–beyond green growth and green economies. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 33–44. 9. Schro¨der, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hoffstetter, J., and Sarkis, J. (2019). Degrowth within–aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 1, 190–191. 10. Casarejos, F., and da Rocha, J.F. (2019). Envisioning societal achievement and legacy of intergenerational yield vis-a`-vis essential precepts for sustainability and stability of Earth’s life-giving systems. Futures 1, 91–103. 11. Ferdinand, P. (2016). Westward ho—the China dream and ‘one belt, one road’: Chinese foreign policy under Xi Jinping. Int. Aff. 92, 941–957.
Previews Sustainable Transitions: Technology, Resources, and Society Joseph Sarkis1,2,* 1Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, USA Institute, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland *Correspondence: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.018 2Humlog
Sustainable transitions are highly dependent on technological solutions, yet concerns arise regarding resource scarcity and supply-chain management. In this issue of One Earth, Hao et al. provide a technological forecast for platinum-group metals (PGMs), crucial for fuel cell technology. They allay fears of untimely PGM depletion but make several important assumptions. Sustainable transitions toward a zero-carbon society are essential if we are to safeguard Earth for future generations. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2016 the transportation industry represented almost 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation transformation is clearly high on the green agenda, and such transitions tend to depend heavily on technological fixes. Indeed, the growth and development of fuel cell and electronic vehicles are key to achieving this sustainable transition. But, although these automotive technologies have implications for energy resource use and greenhouse gas emissions,1 there are consequences, unintended or not, of a dependence on technology to mitigate environmental emission concerns. Technology consumes resources, and invariably, the newer the tech, the rarer the resource. In the case of fuel cell vehicle technology, although it might be central to abating carbon emissions, it requires a scarce resource: platinum, the acquisition of which is accompanied by supply-chain risks. It must therefore be carefully considered to what extent such supply risks affect the sustainability of the new vehicular technology transition, and in turn, our ability to successfully mitigate environmental emissions. Given current technology shifts and immature recycling practices, sustainable supply and technology management are central to environmental resources and emission issues. Supply concerns for platinum-group metals (PGMs) are global, yet the sources are concentrated in fewer than a handful of countries, mostly in the politically and socially sensitive countries
South Africa and Russia. Similar issues arise for almost all products and materials that humans consume. Technological solutions requiring unique resources, in a vacuum, might seem like a panacea. Unfortunately, access to materials, processes, and other resources will nearly always have natural limits. Sustainable and green supply-chain management is complex. These supply concerns have multiple dimensions and require levels of analysis.2 Technological, economic, political, social, legal, proximal, temporal, information, and cultural boundaries range from the individual closed system to the global scale. We also know that they interact within planetary boundaries3—the perception of a technological solution can trigger consumption and behavioral change and a relaxation of mitigation efforts (see below). Natural and environmental scientists and engineers who investigate resource depletion and environmental issues tend to gravitate toward production and technological solutions. In fact, they seem to be the most practicable solution given the I = PAT equation and its variants.4 In I = PAT, the basic equation stipulates that environmental impact (I) is a function of population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T). Population and affluence are relatively socially, politically, and economically intractable. Thus, the path of least resistance is a focus on technology. In fact, ecological modernization theory fundamentally stipulates a policy that technology can help decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. Critiques of ecological modernization
48 One Earth 1, September 20, 2019 ª 2019 Elsevier Inc.
point to ‘‘rebound effects’’ and Jevons Paradox—where greater efficiencies in resources result in greater consumption and increasing pressures on the environment and the planet.5 Let’s revisit some general notions of Hao et al. in this issue of One Earth.6 Assumptions are made about technology and consumption. Both of these dimensions assume greater efficiencies through greater recycling rates and improved technology. Yet, behavior and consumption, the aspects of the rebound effect that could make these assumptions obsolete, are not examined. Consumption of automobiles and PGM resources, due to fewer boundary pressures (i.e., easily available and inexpensive PGMs), is likely to increase. Personal behavioral change could actually lead to an increase in driving as a result of a feeling of less harm to the environment through the use of electric vehicles. Some of these growth dimensions are included in the models, but alas they are only predictions. There are many predictions on both sides of the equation. Modeling the rebound effect is just as fraught with difficulties as future estimates of consumer technology and recycling patterns. Social behavior and consumption consequences should be part of any study on technological forecasting or innovation policy. The technological systems and their holistic relationship with sustainable consumption and production systems need careful examination. Innovation and technological ecosystems influence, and are influenced by, evolving socioenvironmental programs. Growth in demand is likely to occur and is a realistic
One Earth
Previews
Figure 1. Earth Overshoot Day: 1970–2019 Graphic of overshoot dates since 1970. The date represents when human annual demand exceeds Earth’s ecosystem capability to regenerate for that year. Source: Global Footprint Network National Footprint Accounts, 2019 Edition (http://data.footprintnetwork.org).
assumption, but sustainability transitions require consideration of social, behavior, and consumption transformation. When a technological solution is provided, we should also ask whether a curtailment of demand is likely to occur. This is central to the strong sustainability argument. This brings the discussion to recycling strategy, particularly circular economy (CE) thought. The CE practices and theory are still evolving. It has become an essentially contested concept7—one that has had numerous and elusive definitions and requires some careful critical examination given its underpinnings as an economic and technological solution to ensure sustainability. The CE principle is not yet at the stage to make a global difference. There are issues related to scalability, equity, and whether a spiraling down of consumption can occur. There are even some who purport that CE should be more of a spiral, less consumption economy. Hao et al., as do others, espouse that increasing recycling will address many concerns on resource limits.6 The success and scaling of CE principles are the likely assumption underlying various scenarios where recycling limits environmental resource pressures. CE as the solution raises concerns involving CE being too technology and efficiency focused, which has also been criticized as weak sustainability.8
Weak sustainability refers to efforts that consider only a portion of the problem without considering broader social and economic factors, such as attempting to address consumption and behavioral concerns and ignoring the rebound effect. The strong-sustainability perspective goes beyond technology to include the patterns of resource consumption and the size of the economy.8 The strong-sustainability goal is to incorporate a link to affluence, degrowth initiatives, and philosophies while supporting a flourishing natural environment.9 Although PGM resources seem to be healthy for the next 100 years within Earth’s limits no matter the technology or practice, the limits to growth (overshooting Earth’s capabilities) already exist for a number of Earth’s natural systems. The overshoots are substantial, such that some resource consumption is over five times that of Earth’s current life-giving systems.10 Earth Overshoot Day has become a popular media phenomenon, including Twitter handles (#MovetheDate) and even a group that calls itself ‘‘Growthbusters’’ (https://www. overshootday.org/); in 2019, the day the human population overshot the Earth’s capacity to regenerate resources in that same year was July 29 (Figure 1). We are in debt to the planet, and the tab is growing. Many, including myself, in the business, economics, and natural environment
research communities have been espousing practices such as the CE, industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis, and green supply-chain management. There are hundreds of practices and initiatives at multiple levels to address sustainable production and consumption issues. The question we need to ask and consider is whether a holistic perspective exists and should be encouraged and whether these initiatives represent strong or weak sustainability. The community faces questions of whether we can measure our progress on sustainability. Can the CE, green supply chain, and their criticisms be scientifically measured and studied as are the natural sciences? Experimentation, although espoused through adaptive environmental management principles, could help to scientifically examine the CE, the sustainable supply chain, and studies on resources conservation. Social transformations will need to be carefully planned and examined alongside these human systems and scientific contexts. The degrowth community is quite vocal in expressing consumption reduction and changing the current economic models. There have been calls for institutional change for strong sustainable consumption. Would a neo-liberal agenda help provide political legitimation to the degrowth community and strong sustainability? What are the roles of various stakeholders—governments, communities, consumers, supply chains, companies, non-governmental organizations, universities—in a weak- or strongsustainability context? Hao et al. in this issue of One Earth seek to investigate these issues. The social, political, and economic environments do not remain stable. We are living in a transitory world with a new global order (China’s efforts with its ‘‘one belt, one road’’ global trade initiative11) and postglobalization (the United States’ and United Kingdom’s protectionism and global trade barriers). The implications of these events will also influence supplychain risks and resilience. Whether these transitions have long-term sustainabilitytransition implications with environmental and natural-resource implications remains to be seen. These are not necessarily easy transitions to forecast, and any forecast regarding sustainability or One Earth 1, September 20, 2019 49
One Earth
Previews otherwise can be accurate only for a matter of weeks or months. But, using our past and current practices, we need to provide foresight for the future. Although solutions are needed and time is running out, we must ensure that we do not go forward unsustainably or blindly. We have only one Earth and only one future. REFERENCES 1. Hao, H., Geng, Y., and Sarkis, J. (2016). Carbon footprint of global passenger cars: scenarios through 2050. Energy 15, 121–131. 2. Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. 17, 202–216.
50 One Earth 1, September 20, 2019
3. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstro¨m, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., et al. (2015). Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855. 4. York, R., Rosa, E.A., and Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol. Econ. 46, 351–365. 5. Jevons, W.S. (1866). The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines (Macmillan). 6. Hao, H., Geng, Y., Tate, J.E., Liu, F., Sun, X., Mu, Z., Xun, D., Liu, Z., and Zhao, F. (2019). Securing platinum-group metals for transport low-carbon transition. One Earth 1, 117–125. 7. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., and Birkie, S.E. (2018). Circular economy as an
essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 20, 544–552. 8. Lorek, S., and Spangenberg, J.H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy–beyond green growth and green economies. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 33–44. 9. Schro¨der, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hoffstetter, J., and Sarkis, J. (2019). Degrowth within–aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 1, 190–191. 10. Casarejos, F., and da Rocha, J.F. (2019). Envisioning societal achievement and legacy of intergenerational yield vis-a`-vis essential precepts for sustainability and stability of Earth’s life-giving systems. Futures 1, 91–103. 11. Ferdinand, P. (2016). Westward ho—the China dream and ‘one belt, one road’: Chinese foreign policy under Xi Jinping. Int. Aff. 92, 941–957.