 |
Introduction to Sustainable Development for Engineering and Built Environment Professionals
Unit 2 - Learning the Language
Keynote
Lecture
5: Efficiency – Resource Productivity Improvement
To demonstrate that efficiency – doing more
with less for longer - is a positive first step
towards sustainability. To introduce the concept
of efficiency and explain how it leads to efficiency
gains for firms, increased profitability and other
benefits. To explain why efficiency on its own will
not be enough to achieve sustainable development.
The topic of efficiency will be further developed
in ‘Role of Engineers in Sustainable Development
B’ and ‘The Role of Efficiency in Sustainable
Development’, discussing in detail how to
achieve sustainability benefits from efficiency
through providing further checklists and further
online resources to assist the engineer and designer.
Lecture 6: Role of ‘Systems’
for Sustainable Development
To introduce the main concepts of Whole System Design
(WSD) and show how WSD builds on from and complements
design for environment and design for sustainability
strategies. To introduce a ten step operational
checklist for implementing WSD into engineering
practice.
Lecture 7: The Concept of Biomimicry
– An Historical Context
To introduce the emerging field of Biomimicry and
explains why it is such a powerful tool for innovation.
Building on from knowledge gathered over centuries
of harvesting and harnessing nature, engineers and
designers are now exploring the exciting field of
emulating nature’s successes to assist sustainable
development. Biomimicry is a tool for innovation
to assist engineers and designers to move past efficiency
and design sustainable systems learning from nature.
Lecture 8: Green Chemistry and Engineering
– Benign by Design
To provide an overview of how chemical engineers,
often working with chemists, are applying Green
Chemistry and Green Engineering principles to play
a key role in assisting business, the economy and
society achieve sustainable development.
Preliminaries
The engineering profession will play
a significant part in moving society to a more sustainable
way of life. Recognising this, the Engineering Sustainable
Solution Program (ESSP) seeks to provide engineers
and built environment professionals with a basic
understanding of sustainability issues and opportunities
as they relate to their practice. The ESSP is designed
to facilitate the effective incorporation of key
pieces of information, or ‘critical literacies’,
relating to sustainability into engineering curricula
and capacity building. This program provides an
alert to sustainability principles and activity
in the engineering profession.
In the preparation of any education program, and
in particular an introductory course, it is a challenge
to cover all possible questions or uncertainties
that may arise during delivery of the material.
In response to this challenge, this program will
be supported (in its critical academic rigour and
structure) by engineering related material in the
publication, The Natural Advantage of Nations,
and its companion web site (www.naturaledgeproject.net)
along with other key texts.
Hargroves,
K. and Smith, M.H. (2005) The Natural Advantage
of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and
Governance in the 21st Century, Earthscan,
London.
The
Text Book along with each of the units has an online
companion to provide additional supporting material.
Optional reading material is provided after each
lecture for those who wish to explore the content
in more detail.
Acknowledgements
The development of the Engineering Sustainable
Solutions Program – Critical Literacies
Portfolio has been supported by grants from the
following organisations:
-
UNESCO,
Division of Basic and Engineering Sciences,
Natural Sciences Sector (with particular support
and mentoring from Tony Marjoram, Senior Programme
Specialist - Engineering Sciences, and Françoise
Lee).
-
The Institution of Engineers Australia, College
of Environmental Engineers (with particular
support and mentoring from Martin Dwyer, Director
Engineering Practice, and Peter Greenwood, Doug
Jones, Andrew Downing, Tim Macoun, Julie Armstrong
and Paul Varsanyi).
-
The Society for Sustainability and Environmental
Engineering (with particular support and mentoring
from Terrence Jeyaretnam).
Expert review and mentoring has been received from
Janine Benyus and Dayna Baumeister, The Biomimicry
Guild (USA); Paul Anastas, Green Chemistry Institute
(USA); Alan Pears RMIT University (AUS); Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute (USA); Tom Conner, KBR
(AUS); and Mia Kelly, TNEP Working Group (AUS).
We would like to add a special thank you to the
Engineers Australia review panel Trevor Daniell,
Thomas Brinsmead and David Hood.
Citation
Smith, M., Hargroves, K. and Paten, C. (2007) Engineering
Sustainable Solutions Program: Critical Literacies
Portfolio, The Natural Edge Project, Australia
(TNEP).
| |
Brief
Background Information |
What
do we mean when we say ‘Growth’?
Why is it important to talk about Growth?
The meaning of the term ‘growth’ and
whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’,
is hotly debated and discussed by those across the
fields of economics, policy, and development, however,
as this course is intended to introduce the language
of sustainability, there is not time nor space to
explore these issues in full detail here. Instead
a brief introductory discussion is presented to
cover a range of options for reducing the correlation
between physical throughput in our economy (and
impacts on our communities), and economic growth
- a concept known as ‘decoupling economic
growth from environmental and social pressure’.
There are a number of approaches when considering
the concept of ‘growth’ within the sustainability
field, each of which has its own definition of the
problem and related approaches to the growth debate.
A key issue in the debate is that some do not differentiate
between types of ‘growth’, which can
create significant confusion. The word ‘growth’
means different things to different audiences: some
understand economic growth to be the amount of economic
value and monetary transactions as measured by the
GDP (Economic Growth), and some focus on the growth
of physical throughput in the economy and its associated
environmental pressure, waste production and resource
use (Physical Growth).
It is argued in The Natural Advantage of Nations[1]
that it is possible to decouple economic growth
from growth in biophysical throughput and environmental
pressures/pollution, i.e. the successful efforts
to phase out sulphur dioxide (SOx) emissions, asbestos,
and ozone depleting chemicals. It has been demonstrated
that it is possible to have economic growth while
reducing environmental pressures – indeed
the ideal would be to have a positive (restorative)
environmental and social impact.
The OECD have marked the ‘decoupling of economic
growth from environmental pressures’ as one
of their five goals for their 2001-2011 OECD Environmental
Strategy. China has included the recognition that
‘economic growth is not equal to economic
development and that growth is not the final goal
of development’, which will be included in
its 11th Five-Year Plan.
Well Known Angles to the Growth Debate
The arguments of many well known economists do not
adequately differentiate between types of ‘growth’,
which can create significant confusion in the ‘growth
debate’. Much of the confusion arises from
a language misunderstanding where some in the debate
do not acknowledge that the word ‘growth’
means different things to different audiences.
When businesses and governments talk about growth
they generally mean economic growth: that is, (using
the expenditure model of measuring Gross Domestic
Product - GDP) the amount of economic value and
monetary transactions as measured by the GDP. When
Daly, Hamilton and some environmentalists talk about
growth they focus on the growth of physical throughput
in the economy and its associated environmental
pressure. But economic growth and physical growth
are, of course, not the same thing:
- Economic
growth is acceleration in the production of
economic value.
-
Physical growth of the economy means it has
a larger material and energy throughput or has
a larger stock of physical products, buildings
or infrastructure.
Some environmentalists dislike physical growth because
it correlates with increased environmental pressures,
damage and resource depletion. Paul Ekins, director
of Research for Forum for the Future, author of
the seminal publication Economic Growth and
Environmental Sustainability,[2]
and Professor of Economics at the University of
Westminster, writes that it is vital to distinguish
between different types of growth:
- Growth
in the economy’s biophysical throughput.
-
Growth in the economic value of that throughput.
-
Growth in economic welfare/well being.
Having done that Ekins writes,[3]
It is clear from past experience that the
relationship between the economy’s value
and its physical scale is variable, and that it
is possible to reduce the material intensity of
GNP. This establishes the theoretical possibility
of NGP growing indefinitely in a finite material
world.
The Importance of Defining ‘Growth’
Dana Meadows, lead author of the seminal book The
Limits to Growth, explains the problem:[4]
It’s entirely too easy to classify things
as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ and
to keep those classifications fixed. For generations
both population growth and capital growth were
classified as an unmitigated good. On a lightly
populated planet with abundant resources, there
were good reasons for that positive valuation.
Now, with an ever clearer understanding of ecological
limits, it can be tempting to classify all growth
as bad. The risk of managing in an era of limits
demands greater subtlety and more careful classification.
Some people desperately need more food, shelter
and material goods. Some people, in a different
kind of desperation, try to use material growth
to satisfy other needs, which are also very real
but non material: needs for acceptance, self importance,
community and identity. It makes no sense, therefore,
to talk about growth with either unquestioning
approval or unquestioning disapproval. Instead,
it is necessary to ask: Growth of what? For whom?
At what cost? Paid by whom? What is the real need
here and what is the most direct and efficient
way for those who have that need to satisfy it?
How much is enough? What are the obligations to
share?
The answers to those questions can point the way
toward a sufficient and equitable society. Other
questions will point the way toward a sustainable
society. How many people can be provided for with
a given throughput stream within a given ecological
footprint? At what level of material consumption
and for how long? How stressed is the physical
system that supports the human population, the
economy and other species? How resilient is that
support system to what kinds and quantities of
stress? How much is too much?
Decoupling Economic ‘Growth’
from Resource Use
The results of the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment in 2005 show that it is vital that all
nations achieve more rapid decoupling of economic
growth from environmental pressure. In 2001 the
Australian Government committed to this goal through
the then Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill’s[5]
active participation and support for the 2001–2011
OECD Environmental Strategy which included ’achieving
decoupling of economic growth from environmental
pressure’ as the 2nd of five key objectives.
For decades business people and environmentalists
have mistakenly believed that the more you do for
the economy the worst off the environment will be
and the more you do for the environment the worse
off the economy will be. But this does not need
to be the case; business and government can decouple
profits and economic growth from environmental pressures.
Already the world has shown through its efforts
to phase out asbestos, ozone depleting chemicals,
sulphur dioxide emissions and leaded petrol, that
it is possible to achieve significant reductions
in pollution (close to 100 percent decoupling) without
harming economic growth. The OECD have already adopted
decoupling of economic growth from environmental
pressures as the recommended framework for all OECD
nations.[6]
The program of emissions control adopted by the
Second Sulphur Protocol is a great example of what
could be done for all major pollutants. The environmental
objective of the Protocol was to eventually bring
sulphur depositions in Europe within the critical
loads of receiving ecosystems, which is a fundamental
principle of ecological sustainability. The emission
reduction required was of the order of a factor
of ten. Initial perceptions were that it would
be incredibly costly but the removal of subsidies
from coal industries and the arrival of cost effective
low sulphur fuel and technological innovations changed
the cost situation such that the sustainability
standard was attained with essentially no negative
impact on economic growth at all. In this case economic
growth and ecological sustainability were quite
compatible.[7]
Figure
v. Sulphur dioxide emissions from energy
usage versus GDP from 1980-1998.
Source:
OECD Secretariat (2002)[8]
Redefining Growth
The Chinese Government has launched a landmark 11th
five year plan which for the first time places ‘scientific’
(sustainable) development as its primary goal rather
than economic growth. The Chinese People’s
Daily newspaper stated under a heading of “From
‘Growth Rate’ to ‘Sustainable
Development’”:[9]
The recognition that economic growth is not
equal to economic development and that growth
is not the final goal of development, will be
included in a Five-Year Plan for the first time
[said analysts]. Top leaders have criticized old
concepts of economic growth many times, saying
that ‘economic development at the centre’
does not mean ‘with speed at the centre’.
Blind pursuit of economic growth has led to blind
investment, damage to the environment and false
statistics. The country's helmsmen are worried
that without changing China's concept of growth,
the economy might develop an unbalanced structure
with a lack of driving power. In the 11th Five-Year
Plan, the economic growth will be defined as ‘Serving
the people to improve life quality.’
Pan Yue, a vice minister of the State Environmental
Protection Administration, was quoted in Germany's
Der Spiegel magazine, saying,[10]
This [Chinese economic] miracle will end soon
because the environment can no longer keep pace.
Acid rain is falling on one third of the Chinese
territory, half of the water in our seven largest
rivers is completely useless, while one fourth
of our citizens do not have access to clean drinking
water. One third of the urban population is breathing
polluted air, and less than 20% of the trash in
cities is treated and processed in an environmentally
sustainable manner. Finally, five of the ten most
polluted cities worldwide are in China.
This has major implications globally as the economic
growth of China is a significant factor in driving
global economic growth currently. In addition to
acknowledging sustainable development as its primary
goal, the 11th five year plan also includes commitments
to reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by
about 20 percent lower than the energy consumption
measured at the end of the 10th five-year plan period.
Furthermore, as a result of mounting concerns, the
Chinese Government has committed to adopting Green
GDP accounting. Xu Xianchun, director-general of
the Department of National Accounts at the National
Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in China, stated in 2004
that at the first stage, the NBS plans to adopt
the calculation methods the United Nations enshrined
in its comprehensive environmental economic account
system.
Xu stated that,[11]
China is facing problems of over-consumption
of resources in pursuit of rapid economic growth,
adding that the pure concept of GDP fails to reflect
the influence of economic growth on the resources
and environment… The green GDP can help
people understand the costs of resources and environment
during the economic development, urging people
to realize that it is unreasonable to purely seek
economic growth while ignoring the importance
of the resources and environment.
Talking to Business – New Terms
and Models
It is fundamentally important that the key emerging
sustainability language and terms are understood
before discussions around sustainability take place.
The engineering and built environment profession
must make sure that we are all ‘playing on
the same playing field’, otherwise it is difficult
to make sense of discussion, and progress may be
unnecessarily slowed.
- ‘Triple
bottom line’ (TBL): TBL is about
dropping the financial bottom line as a meaningful
indicator of where you stand in the market place,
and replacing it with a bottom line that properly
acknowledges the interplay of the social, economic
and environmental dimensions of our lives.
-
The concept is often extended to an ‘Integrated
Bottom Line’ concept, where
it is recognised that ultimately business
likes a single ‘bottom line’ for
their finances. An ‘Integrated Bottom
Line’ implies that the financial statement
includes a holistic and integrated analysis
of social, environmental and economic factors.
- ‘Triple
Bottom Line Plus One (TBL+1)’:
The concept of the TBL has been extended by
adding the governance dimension (TBL +1).
- ‘Triple
Top Line’: This is a term coined
by McDonough and Braungart[12]
(leading sustainable development experts), to
summarise a new design perspective that creates
triple top line growth: products that enhance
the well being of nature and culture while generating
economic value. This is an extension of the
Triple Bottom Line concept, used by businesses
to try to balance traditional economic goals
with social and environmental concerns.
- ‘Natural
Capitalism’: This is a set of
trends and economic reforms to reward energy
and material efficiency, and remove professional
standards and accounting conventions that prevent
such efficiencies.
- ‘Service
and Flow’: Service and flow helps
introduce the motivations behind the shifting
industry trend from being a manufacturer of
products to a provider of services, therefore
retaining the product end-of-life responsibility
- as a way of dramatically reducing waste, improving
resource efficiency, and increasing value to
the customer.
- ‘Product
Stewardship through Life-Cycle Analysis’:
Engineers and designers need to keep in mind
the short and long term implications of their
work. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a means
of identifying the materials and waste streams
throughout the life of a product or process
and hence its impact on the environment.
Business Language - Triple Bottom Line
or Integrated Bottom Line
If we are to achieve our environmental
goals, they must be pursued in a holistic context,
blending advancements in social, environmental and
economic areas.
As former Australian Senator, Robert Hill, stated,
We need to develop decision-making processes
which take into account not only the financial
costs and benefits of our actions, but also the
social and environmental consequences. Those processes
will need to shift the focus away from short-term
economic gain toward long term economic, social
and environmental impacts: the triple bottom line.
Robert
Hill, former Australian Senator, 2000[13]
Society
therefore needs to pursue its environmental, social
and economic goals simultaneously. In order to achieve
sustainable development across such a triple/integrated
bottom line spectrum we have to ask, in relation
to each domain (environmental, social and economic),
what do we want to sustain/maintain and why?
Society is interested not only in maintaining environmental,
social and economic values (i.e. sustaining things
or attributes that it values), but also in improving
on past conditions (i.e. achieving genuine progress).
As Phillip Sutton, Director of Green Innovations,
writes,[14]
The
term ‘sustainability’ alone is not
about the integration of ecological, social and
economic issues, nor is it about improving quality
of life. It's about maintaining or sustaining
something, literally the ‘ability to sustain’.
Many environmentalists mean 'ecological sustainability'
when they say 'sustainability' and many business
people mean 'economic sustainability'. But when
we use the term 'sustainability' the inferred
meaning is 'ecological, social and economic sustainable
development' (a combination of the three plus
the dynamic aspect of improvement encapsulated
in the word ‘development’). What we
need to bear in mind, is that over the long term,
financial and economic outcomes are not sustainable
unless genuine progress is made to develop and
restore nature and social capital. And that it
is not possible to achieve a desired level of
ecological, social or economic sustainability
(separately) without achieving at least a basic
level of all three aspects of life and society,
simultaneously.
Philip
Sutton, Green Innovations, 2000[15]
A
key word search on the internet reveals a surprising
array of organisations that report in this way.
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an example
of a guideline on ‘how to do’ TBL reporting.
The GRI is a multi-stakeholder process and independent
institution, whose mission is to develop and disseminate
globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines.
Triple Top Line[16]
The triple bottom line has been, and remains, a
useful tool for integrating sustainability into
the business agenda. By balancing traditional economic
goals with social and environmental concerns, it
has created a new measure of corporate performance.
However, a business strategy focused solely on the
bottom line can obscure opportunities to pursue
innovation and create value in the design process.
New tools for sustainable design can refocus product
development from a process aimed at limiting end
of pipe liabilities to one geared toward creating
safe, quality products right from the start.
The new ‘triple top line’ design perspective
is proposed by Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart
and seeks to create triple top line growth: products
that enhance the wellbeing of nature and culture
while generating economic value. Design for the
triple top line follows the laws of nature to give
industry the tools to develop systems that safely
generate prosperity. In these new human systems,
materials become food for the soil or flow back
to industry forever. Value and quality are embodied
in the products, processes and facilities, which
are so ecologically intelligently designed, they
leave footprints to delight in rather than lament,
as McDonough and Braungart put it. When the principles
of ecologically intelligent design are widely applied
both nature and commerce can thrive and grow.
Natural Capitalism
Natural Capitalism is a new business model that
involves four interrelated shifts in business practice:[17]
-
Principle 1: Radical Resource Productivity
- radically increase the productivity of natural
resources (e.g. by ‘factor 4’ (75
percent reduction), ‘factor 10’
(90 percent reduction), etc.) through a Whole
System Design mentality that fundamentally changes
facilities, production processes, and products.
-
Principle 2: Biomimicry - shift
production to biologically inspired patterns
that close materials loops, eliminate waste
and toxicity, and minimise throughput.
-
Principle 3: Solutions Economy Business
Model - move to a solutions-based business
model that delivers value as a continuous flow
of services rather than the sale of goods. This
model rewards both the provider and the customer
for doing more and better with less for longer.
-
Principle 4: Reinvest in Natural and
Human Capital - reinvest in natural and
human capital, which is ultimately the basis
of future prosperity, yet it is in increasingly
short supply.
Service and Flow
As consumers, we don’t necessary want a lump
of coal, a beam of aluminium or a container of toxic
chemicals – we want the services they provide
(such as power, shelter, mobility or cleaning services).
Thinking in this way creates a distinction between
what is made as a product, and what need it is intended
to satisfy. In the 1980s analyst Walter R. Stahel[18]
and green chemist Michael Braungart[19]
proposed an industrial model different to the version
manufacturers traditionally used. Instead of an
economy comprising of making and selling goods,
Stahel and Braungart proposed what they called the
‘Service Economy’.[20]
In a service economy, manufacturers are deliverers
of a service (rather than producers and sellers
of products), aiming to provide longer lasting durables
and offer a take-back and reuse service at the end
of the product’s useful life.
Shifting
from a ‘cradle-to-grave’ product (a
product that is made, used, and transferred to landfill
at the end of its useful life) to a ‘cradle-to-cradle’
product (C2C – a product that is made, used
and reused) can bring information on the product’s
performance back to the designer to enable improvements.
Ideally the product would last as long as it can
with the consumer and then return to one of two
metabolisms to be reused – either in the biological
cycle or the technical cycle.[21]
Business benefits of service and flow:[22]
-
Resource efficiency gains - on average, three
times as much energy is used to extract virgin
or primary materials as is used to manufacture
products from those materials, and hence reusing
these products saves a lot of energy, cost and
greenhouse emissions.
-
Stabilising business cycles - customers require
services continuously throughout the year, whereas
products are typically bought only during good
years.
-
Reduction/elimination of inventory - removes
the burdens associated with over- and under-
capacity. Providing services means omitting
delivery or backlogs of products.
Safety
Kleen[23]
are in the business of providing industrial cleaning
and environmental services, and managing the transport,
use, recovery and disposal of chemicals in oil collection
and re-refining, containerised waste, cleaning products,
ink and paint stripping, parts washing, and vacuum
services. Recently, the Austrian government, in
conjunction with several companies, commissioned
two studies into the potential for service based
chemical leasing. These studies concluded that:[24]
-
Four thousand Austrian companies, with 2250
in the cleaning/degreasing industry would qualify
for chemical leasing programs.
-
Austria’s annual use of 153,000 tons of
chemicals could be cut by 53,000 tons per year,
immediately reducing cost, emissions and waste.
-
The reduced solvent use would result in environmental
benefits, distributed as 10 percent air emissions,
15 percent water emissions and 75 percent waste.
-
An average company could expect cost savings
of 15 percent, or about €6,100.
Product Stewardship through Life-Cycle
Analysis[25]
Engineers and Designers must take a long term approach
to the design of their solutions – what societal,
environmental, and economic impacts will the design
have over the short, medium and long term?
-
Social implications – who does the solution
affect, now and in the future? Example:
Prolonged greenhouse emissions from automobiles
will lead to inevitable climate change –
the life-threatening effects of climate change
may not be experienced in our lifetime, but
definitely in the lifetimes of our future generations.
-
Environmental implications – what effect
does the solution have in the long term? Example:
Wind turbines are one of the cleanest generators
of electricity available. The optimal materials
for the turbine blades are plastic composites,
which are extremely difficult to separate and
recycle at the end of its life (average wind
turbine blade life is 25 years). How can we
recycle these composites, or make wind turbine
blades out of a recyclable material, to prevent
stockpiles of composite plastic waste in the
future?
-
Economic implications – what are the future
costs associated with the design? Maintenance
costs, waste management costs, costs relating
to increases in utility rates, and dependence
on resources which may increase in costs over
the coming decades?
-
Return on investment – how fast can the
solution recuperate the costs associated with
implementing the solution? Example: Implementing
a new energy efficient manufacturing technology
may require greater initial costs compared to
maintaining the current technology. However
the savings associated with reduced energy costs
and high productivity/less maintenance may over
a short period of time (e.g. 2-3 years) repay
the initial costs associated with implementing
the new technology, and create increased profits
for the manufacturing company.
According to the ISO 14040 series, LCA is conducted
by 1) developing an inventory of all inputs (materials,
energy) and outputs (waste, emissions, other environmental
impacts); 2) evaluating potential impacts based
on inputs and outputs compiled in inventory; and
3) interpreting results. , Using the example of
making a t-shirt, step one might look something
like this:[26]
-
Raw Materials – fertiliser, energy, water
-
Processing – energy, cleaners, dyes
-
Manufacturing – energy, waste
-
Packaging – paper, plastics, waste
-
Transport – energy
-
Use – bleach, detergents, water, energy
-
Either one of 1) Disposal, 2) Reuse (go back to
point f.), or 3) recycle (go back to point a.)
If businesses take a life cycle approach to their
daily activities, they not only take into consideration
the finished product or service by the inputs and
outputs at each state of the process (or production
or service delivery), but also how it will impact
the environment and community. A lifecycle approach
helps us to engage in whole systems thinking –
both understanding the complex interactions between
energy and material throughout the life of a product,
and thinking in the long term about the impacts
on the environment and society. LCA ultimately helps
industry, government and the consumer make informed
decisions about product purchasing.
[1]
Hargroves, K. and Smith, M.H. (2005) The Natural
Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation
and Governance in the 21st Century, Earthscan,
London, Chapter 3: Asking the Right Questions, ‘How
should we measure growth?’ pp 43-45. See ‘What
is meant when we speak of ‘sustainability’
and ‘sustainable development’? pp 45-47,
for further reading. (Back)
[2]
Ekins, P. (2000) Economic Growth and Environmental
Sustainability, Routledge Publishing, London.
(Back)
[3]
Ibid. (Back)
[4]
Meadows, D. (1972) The Limits to Growth: A Report
for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament
of Mankind, Universal Books, London. (Back)
[5]
OECD Environment (2001) Meeting of EPOC at Ministerial
Level. Available at http://www1.oecd.org/env/min/2001/agenda.htm.
Accessed 3 January 2007. (Back)
[6]
OECD Secretariat (2002) Indicators to Measure
Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic
Growth, OECD, Paris. (Back)
[7]
Ekins, P. (2000) Economic Growth and Environmental
Sustainability, Routledge Publishing London,
New York, Chapter 10: Sustainability and Sulphur Emissions:
The Case of the UK, 1970-2010. (Back)
[8]
OECD Secretariat (2002) Indicators to Measure
Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic
Growth, OECD, Paris. (Back)
[9]
Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United
States of America, (2005) ‘New 5-Year Plan to
see revolutionary changes’, 10/11/05. Available
at http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t216091.htm
(Accessed 3 January 2007). (Back)
[10]
Environmental News Network (2005) ‘In China's
Dash to Develop, Environment Suffers Severely’,
July 25, 2005 — By Tim Johnson, Knight Ridder
Washington Bureau. Avaiable at
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8322. Accessed
3 January 2007. (Back)
[11]
Peoples Daily (2004) ‘Green GDP system to debut
in 3-5 years in China’. Available at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200403/11/eng20040311_137244.shtml.
Accessed 3 January 2007. (Back)
[12]
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) ‘Design
for the Triple Top Line: Tools for Sustainable Commerce’,
Corporate Environmental Strategy, vol. 9,
no. 3, Elsevier Sciences Inc. (Back)
[13]
Hill, R. (2000) An address to The International Society
of Ecological Economists by the Federal Minister for
the Environment and Heritage. Senator the Hon Robert
Hill, Australian National University, Canberra, July
6, 2000. Available at www.ea.gov.au/minister/env/2000/sp6jul00.html.
Accessed 3 January 2007. (Back)
[14]
Philip Sutton is the director
of policy and strategy of ‘Green Innovations’,
a non-profit environmental-policy think tank and consultancy
organisation promoting global and local ecological
sustainability. Sutton’s work focuses on environmental-management
systems for sustainability-seeking organisations and
also on strategies for an ecologically sustainable
economy. He has written on sustainability-oriented
economic-development strategies; economic growth;
eco-taxation; industry policy for the timber and plastics
industries; and energy and urban policy. Available
at
www.green-innovations.asn.au/sustblty.htm. Accessed
7 June 2006. (Back)
[15] Green
Innovations (2000) Sustainability: What does it
mean?. Available at www.green-innovations.asn.au/sustblty.htm#what-is.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
[16]
Abstract from McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002)
‘Design for the Triple Top Line: Tools for Sustainable
Commerce’, Corporate Environmental Strategy,
vol. 9, no. 3, Elsevier Sciences Inc. (Back)
[17]
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural
Capitalism: Creating the next Industrial Revolution,
Earthscan, London. (Back)
[18] Walter
R. Stahel is a Director of the Product Life Institute.
www.product-life.org/directors.htm.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
[19]
See Michael Braungart (n.d.) Braungart Home Page.
Available at www.braungart.com.
Accessed 7 June 2006. Braungart is also co-founder
of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), www.mbdc.com.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
[20]
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural
Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution,
Earthscan, London, pp 11-14. (Back)
[21] McDonough,
W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle:
Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point
Press, New York. (Back)
[22]
Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural
Capitalism: Creating the next Industrial Revolution,
Earthscan, London, pp 142-143. (Back)
[23]
Safety Kleen, www.safety-kleen.com.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
[24] Perthen-Palmisano,
B. and Jakl, T. (2004) Chemical leasing –
the Austrian approach. Available at www.sustainable-chemistry.com/download/IV_Perthen-Palmisano.pdf.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
[25]
Madu, C. (2001) Handbook of Environmentally Conscious
Manufacturing, Kluwer Academic Publishes, Norwell,
Chapter 17. (Back)
[26]
UNEP/SETAC (2004) Why take a Life Cycle Approach?,
United Nations Environment Program, Paris. Available
at www.fivewinds.com/uploadedfiles_shared/UNEPBooklet.print.pdf.
Accessed 7 June 2006. (Back)
The
Natural Edge Project Engineering Sustainable Solutions
Program is supported by the Australian National Commission
for UNESCO through the International Relations Grants
Program of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
|
|