118
dwellers, almost all of them in developing countries. If they are to receive the level
of services converging on those currently experienced in developed nations, this
will entail a massive investment in infrastructure and substantial quantities of steel,
concrete and aluminium (materials that account for nearly half of industrial emissions). This scenario is confronted by the legacy of existing infrastructure and the
limit of a cumulative carbon budget within which we could restrain global temperature rise to <2 °C.
A metabolic framework incorporating stock dynamics can make an explicit connection between the timing of infrastructure growth or replacement and the material
and energy needs of that investment. Moreover, it provides guidance on the technical and systemic options for climate mitigation concurrent with a future of intense
urban development and industrialisation.
Keywords Climate change • Cross-sector coupling • Embodied energy and emissions • Flows • Infrastructure • Metabolic framework • MFA • Socio-economic
metabolism • Stocks
1 Background
There is strong consensus among scientists that climate change is upon us and that
mitigation action is both worthwhile and urgent (UNFCCC 2011 ; IPCC 2014a ). At
the same time, there is widespread recognition that the poverty and inequality in the
developing world is unsustainable and there are internationally agreed goals to rectify this (UN 2012 ). Climate change research has defi ned the problem: through measuring and modelling the fl ows of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs),
monitoring extreme weather events, acidifi cation of oceans and other observations,
the causes and consequences of climate change have been identifi ed. We can attribute global climate change to a host of different economic activities with some
degree of spatial detail (e.g. Hertwich and Peters 2009 ; Peters 2010 ). Current mainstream models for climate change mitigation (CCM) frame the problem predominantly as one of the energy systems and one that is located where energy or emissions
are produced or where energy is fi nally consumed. They emphasise energy and
emissions directly or indirectly associated with activity in different sectors of society (including land use change) – see Fig. 6.1 – but they omit (1) the linkages
between energy use sectors through nonenergy resource fl ows, (2) the drivers of
resource use (e.g. from infrastructure development) and (3) the secondary resource
availability (e.g. from infrastructure retirement). Thus, the current mainstream
CCM models omit the material boundary conditions of the global system and
opportunities for energy and emissions saving through recycling and reuse of
materials.
When we refer to solutions, we ask: ‘what can we do about climate change?’
What are the technical and behavioural responses to the challenge? Analysis of
energy and emissions fl ows is essential but insuffi cient to address these questions
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller
dwellers, almost all of them in developing countries. If they are to receive the level
of services converging on those currently experienced in developed nations, this
will entail a massive investment in infrastructure and substantial quantities of steel,
concrete and aluminium (materials that account for nearly half of industrial emissions). This scenario is confronted by the legacy of existing infrastructure and the
limit of a cumulative carbon budget within which we could restrain global temperature rise to <2 °C.
A metabolic framework incorporating stock dynamics can make an explicit connection between the timing of infrastructure growth or replacement and the material
and energy needs of that investment. Moreover, it provides guidance on the technical and systemic options for climate mitigation concurrent with a future of intense
urban development and industrialisation.
Keywords Climate change • Cross-sector coupling • Embodied energy and emissions • Flows • Infrastructure • Metabolic framework • MFA • Socio-economic
metabolism • Stocks
1 Background
There is strong consensus among scientists that climate change is upon us and that
mitigation action is both worthwhile and urgent (UNFCCC 2011 ; IPCC 2014a ). At
the same time, there is widespread recognition that the poverty and inequality in the
developing world is unsustainable and there are internationally agreed goals to rectify this (UN 2012 ). Climate change research has defi ned the problem: through measuring and modelling the fl ows of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs),
monitoring extreme weather events, acidifi cation of oceans and other observations,
the causes and consequences of climate change have been identifi ed. We can attribute global climate change to a host of different economic activities with some
degree of spatial detail (e.g. Hertwich and Peters 2009 ; Peters 2010 ). Current mainstream models for climate change mitigation (CCM) frame the problem predominantly as one of the energy systems and one that is located where energy or emissions
are produced or where energy is fi nally consumed. They emphasise energy and
emissions directly or indirectly associated with activity in different sectors of society (including land use change) – see Fig. 6.1 – but they omit (1) the linkages
between energy use sectors through nonenergy resource fl ows, (2) the drivers of
resource use (e.g. from infrastructure development) and (3) the secondary resource
availability (e.g. from infrastructure retirement). Thus, the current mainstream
CCM models omit the material boundary conditions of the global system and
opportunities for energy and emissions saving through recycling and reuse of
materials.
When we refer to solutions, we ask: ‘what can we do about climate change?’
What are the technical and behavioural responses to the challenge? Analysis of
energy and emissions fl ows is essential but insuffi cient to address these questions
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller