xii
But the key concern behind the rise of industrial ecology is the acceptance that the
way human activities are using, and using up, the planet’s resources cannot continue
unchecked: we (i.e. human society and our economy) must change to become sustainable. Part of industrial ecology is concerned with analysing economic systems
to identify where unsustainability originates, but, as in the original statement by
Frosch and Gallopoulos, this necessarily leads to suggestions on how the system
should be changed. These two sides of industrial ecology – analytical and prospective/design oriented (in the broadest sense) – are illustrated by the chapters in this
book.
A basic premise of industrial ecology is that it is concerned with sustainability.
This demands an articulation of what we mean by sustainability and sustainable
development , given that the terms are ‘contested’ (and arguably have been diluted
by loose usage). We start by pointing out that development , as in sustainable development , is not to be equated with economic ‘development’ in the sense of increasing
per capita GDP or disposable income. The Brandt Commission (1980) pointed out
fi rmly that:
One must avoid the persistent confusion of growth with development, and we strongly
emphasise that the prime objective of development is to lead to self-fulfi lment and creative
partnership in the use of a nation’s productive forces and its full human potential.
There is a body of literature exploring this interpretation and the related question
of how happiness and quality of life can best be promoted. Although this question
is only briefl y touched upon in the chapters in this book, the point clearly articulated
by the Brandt Commission underlies many of the chapters.
Jackson (2010) has offered one of the most succinct defi nitions of
sustainability:
Sustainability is the art of living well, within the ecological limits of a fi nite planet.
Here ‘living well’ is to be interpreted in two senses. First, it means living prosperously – with a decent level of material comfort, security and dignity. Second, it
has a moral sense – not living at the expense of the well-being of others – and thus
feeling your life is good in ethical terms.
Recognition of ecological limits is fundamental: if it were possible to expand
economic activity without limits, sustainability of development would not be a concern. A widespread interpretation of sustainability, which is implicit in many of the
chapters in this book, recognises three dimensions or types of constraints. This is
shown schematically in Fig. 1 in the form of a Venn diagram in which each lobe
represents a possible operating space bounded by constraints, which may be ‘hard’
or ‘soft’. ‘Techno-economic effi ciency’ represents the ranges of activities available
to us, limited by our technical skills and ingenuity, by the laws of thermodynamics
and by the need to be effi cient as defi ned by the prevailing economic system. An
important point, picked up in several chapters in this book, is that that the laws of
thermodynamics are ‘hard-wired’ into the universe, whereas the ‘laws’ of economics are human constructs and therefore mutable, for example by changes to the fi scal
system. ‘Environmental compatibility’ represents the range of activities which can
Introduction
But the key concern behind the rise of industrial ecology is the acceptance that the
way human activities are using, and using up, the planet’s resources cannot continue
unchecked: we (i.e. human society and our economy) must change to become sustainable. Part of industrial ecology is concerned with analysing economic systems
to identify where unsustainability originates, but, as in the original statement by
Frosch and Gallopoulos, this necessarily leads to suggestions on how the system
should be changed. These two sides of industrial ecology – analytical and prospective/design oriented (in the broadest sense) – are illustrated by the chapters in this
book.
A basic premise of industrial ecology is that it is concerned with sustainability.
This demands an articulation of what we mean by sustainability and sustainable
development , given that the terms are ‘contested’ (and arguably have been diluted
by loose usage). We start by pointing out that development , as in sustainable development , is not to be equated with economic ‘development’ in the sense of increasing
per capita GDP or disposable income. The Brandt Commission (1980) pointed out
fi rmly that:
One must avoid the persistent confusion of growth with development, and we strongly
emphasise that the prime objective of development is to lead to self-fulfi lment and creative
partnership in the use of a nation’s productive forces and its full human potential.
There is a body of literature exploring this interpretation and the related question
of how happiness and quality of life can best be promoted. Although this question
is only briefl y touched upon in the chapters in this book, the point clearly articulated
by the Brandt Commission underlies many of the chapters.
Jackson (2010) has offered one of the most succinct defi nitions of
sustainability:
Sustainability is the art of living well, within the ecological limits of a fi nite planet.
Here ‘living well’ is to be interpreted in two senses. First, it means living prosperously – with a decent level of material comfort, security and dignity. Second, it
has a moral sense – not living at the expense of the well-being of others – and thus
feeling your life is good in ethical terms.
Recognition of ecological limits is fundamental: if it were possible to expand
economic activity without limits, sustainability of development would not be a concern. A widespread interpretation of sustainability, which is implicit in many of the
chapters in this book, recognises three dimensions or types of constraints. This is
shown schematically in Fig. 1 in the form of a Venn diagram in which each lobe
represents a possible operating space bounded by constraints, which may be ‘hard’
or ‘soft’. ‘Techno-economic effi ciency’ represents the ranges of activities available
to us, limited by our technical skills and ingenuity, by the laws of thermodynamics
and by the need to be effi cient as defi ned by the prevailing economic system. An
important point, picked up in several chapters in this book, is that that the laws of
thermodynamics are ‘hard-wired’ into the universe, whereas the ‘laws’ of economics are human constructs and therefore mutable, for example by changes to the fi scal
system. ‘Environmental compatibility’ represents the range of activities which can
Introduction