|
|
| |
|
|
|
Conference statement - Closing version
Eco-efficiency for sustainability: What we can agree on.
Results from the 3rd International Eco-Efficiency Conference,
9-11 June 2010
Gjalt Huppes & Masanobu Ishikawa
Participants of the Third International Conference on Eco-Efficiency, held in Egmond aan de Zee, The Netherlands, June 9-11, 2010, discussed how to ensure that 8 billion people in developed and (former) developing countries can have a good life by 2050.
- It was stated that two challenges needed to be fulfilled simultaneously. The environmental challenge is that by 2050 the pressure on the environment needs to be diminished with a factor 2 to 5 (this means that the environmental stress will be reduced with 50-80%). The socio-economic challenge is that by 2050 a 4 fold increase of Global Gross Product (GGP) will be needed to eradicate poverty, have all people live a ‘good life’, having access to basic needs and more.
- Meeting both environmental and socio-economic goals means that the world needs to improve its eco-efficiency with a factor of 10 (over 5% per annum). The 5% target is an average figure and will need to be applied to all technologies and product-service systems; those with lower improvement potential will need to be compensated by more progress in others.
- This is an unprecedented challenge, but we have 40 years, and the world has seen other drastic changes in the past. It is therefore not impossible.
- Improvement of technologies alone will most likely not be sufficient, nor are win-win options, balancing economy and the environment. A decoupling of economic growth from environmental damage is needed, by means of developing and implementing deep eco-innovations: new technology/product-service systems, combined with changing consumer demand and mindsets.
- We need to identify opportunities for:
- influencing consumption volumes, building upon in particular a thorough analysis of the underlying causes for consumption, in conjunction with ongoing (scenario) work on degrowth, and building on demographic trend analyses. Analysis will be required to the impacts of, for instance, shifting from work to leisure in the most developed countries, with corresponding less income, but perhaps compensated by a higher quality of life.
- influencing consumption patterns and lifestyles. The environmental impacts of such shift need to be analyzed, including reviewing changes in income elasticities of consumption.
- improving production technologies.
- Drivers or incentives to bring about these changes include the use of communication tools (green marketing or advertising, education, awareness raising campaigns), legislation, fundamental redirection of the pricing system and other governmental policies (such as on environment, labor, transport). The involvement of the expertise of psychologists and sociologists was considered very important. Individual consumers should be empowered to become concerned citizens.
- Integrating and 'bringing together' various related concepts and approaches was considered important for achieving better understanding among researchers. System thinking skills were pointed out. Enabling end-users to get better access to the various information and data tools was considered key for the effectiveness of policies. The "Earthster" program, developed in the USA, was mentioned as an example of open source sharing of LCA data, enabling companies and governments to better know and work with their supply chain.
- The Conference did not provide evidence that a 5% eco-efficiency gain per annum would be possible, and recommended further research as on stronger drivers for eco-innovation. Research on the rebound effect was considered to be among the priorities, as well as on consumer behavior, revised market pricing as an instrument for social change, and specific needs and perspectives of developing countries, more in particular on their abilities for achieving eco-innovation, supported by fair technology transfer. A long-list of detailed issues for further research is added to this statement, available at the conference website.
- It was suggested to aim for a next conference on how to achieve a 5% eco-efficiency gain through measures such as promoting transport by train, organic catering and reducing waste. The eco-efficiency discussion will be going on, including on the internet, and possibly by organizing back-to-back sessions with existing conferences.
The Challenge explained
Increasing affluence in a globally still growing population creates a heavy burden on the environment. With affluence up 1.5% per year and a growth of working population of 0.5% on average for the next 40 years, an overall improvement in eco-efficiency performance of 2% per year is required to just keep pressures on the environment constant. Eco-efficiency is defined here as environmental intensity: environmental pressure per unit of value added, in the aggregate as GDP. However, for major environmental stressors, substantial absolute reductions are required as many effects are time delayed, like climate change and ecosystem deterioration, and we are overshooting sustainability marks already. Therefore a substantial reduction in total environmental impacts is required. Whatever the exact outcomes of the political process ‘after Copenhagen’, it is clear that an absolute reduction in the order of 50% over 40 years is a not excessive target for climate changing emissions. That is another 1% per year, on top of the 2% per year to keep environmental pressure constant. Realising such reductions implies an unprecedented improvement in eco-efficiency of on average 3% per year. This would halve the impact per Euro of average consumption each two decades. A balanced win-win in eco-innovation, as an equal improvement of both economic and environmental performance, would not decrease total environmental impact but might even increase it. So balanced win-win is not the solution; it helps create the problem. We will have to do substantially better.
The task ahead is even more extreme than these average figures indicate. Imagine a new product-technology combination with an eco-efficiency performance 50% better than current average environmental intensity. Such a deep improvement cannot be realized tomorrow. Basic innovations typically require around three decades for substantial market penetration, if indeed they succeed. Let’s be optimistic and assume exceptionally fast change, with substantial market penetration after one decade and a normal functioning of twenty five years, being superseded by a better technology by then, jumping 50% again. This corresponds roughly to an improvement of 3% per year on average. That is just enough to keep pace with the environmental targets to be reached. But the improvement task is more demanding. For a performance improvement of 3% per year on average, some activities will have to improve much more, as some other activities hardly can reach such improvement figures. Railway transport, airline transport and staple foods probably cannot improve their eco-efficiency with such drastic figures for decades to come. So other product and technology systems will have to improve even more.
Are there other options than such extreme improvements in eco-efficiency through technology improvement? Yes, there are: Shifting demand and reducing demand. Firstly, we may consume differently. A most clear contribution a consumer may give is to eat less meat and to travel less. However, spending less on one item means spending more on others, and the difference in environmental intensity between options considered mostly are not that large. Drivers for such change are cultural and as yet weak, or they would involve adapted price mechanisms, and in exceptional cases prohibition types of policies. Second, total environmental pressure is environmental pressure per unit of consumption times total consumption, the core part of the IPAT equation. So, reducing consumption may help achieve overall environmental goals. Reducing consumption means spending less, means working less, and earning less. Not reducing production and income while reducing consumption means investing more, leading to higher consumption later. Consuming less is a core subject of degrowth. Life time working hours differ substantially between countries, in terms of weekly hours, holidays and effective retirement age. Using half of the labour productivity increase of around 2% for leisure would reduce labour volume and hence consumption substantially. Over 40 years, towards 2050, we would have a rise in consumption of 50% instead of 120%. That means a reduction of around 1/3 of total consumption, as compared to autonomous development without increasing leisure time. Such (relative) degrowth may hence give a substantial contribution to achieving environmental quality, much more than any large scale technology measure. It can reduce the as yet unrealistically high requirements on eco-efficiency improvements as quantified above.
By combining eco-efficiency improvement with adapted consumption patterns and with reduced growth, especially of the richest in the world, we may realise the substantial absolute environmental improvement as is required for a sustainable world.
Questions for research can be found here.
Contributions to the discussion will be placed on the weblog, hosted by The Broker on their ongoing blog Global Green Economics: conference weblog. Please feel free to send your individual blog posts to the editors, Bas de Leeuw and Ruben Huele, at weblog[at]eco-efficiency-conf.org, or react directly on the blogs placed already.
|
|
|
|
|
|