120
2005 ) and IMAGE (Stehfest et al. 2014 ) models – but they do not account rigorously for materials and the dynamics of fl ows from stocks at the end of life. The
existing assessment and modelling frameworks are not lacking in scope – they
include many sectors of society in detail – but often in-use stock dynamics and
cross-sectoral linkages are absent (e.g. Allwood et al. ( 2010 )). Moreover, studies of
material fl ows and models of aggregate stocks (Davis et al. 2010 ) rarely couple the
material fl ow to a capital stock that has both a direct energy effi ciency characteristic
in operation and an indirect energy and emissions requirement in its own construction. These issues are also addressed in Chap. 8 .
In this chapter, we discuss a socio-economic metabolic framework that can represent the interlinked nature of sustainable development and climate change mitigation from a physical perspective. It incorporates stocks and fl ows of infrastructures,
materials, energy and emissions as well as their multiple linkages through processes
that are treated using mass and energy balances. This allows for a representation of
feedbacks and delays in these material and energy connections through recycling
and maintenance. The metabolic framework is not intended to replace the energy
and emissions framework, but rather expands it in order to reconcile CCM with
sustainable development, to understand the side effects of CCM (co-benefi ts and
risks) and thereby identify effective mitigation pathways.
2 A Socio-economic Metabolism Framework
The concept of socio-economic metabolism is relatively young in the literature.
Here we interpret the term in an inclusive sense that is synonymous with social
(Fischer-Kowalski 1998 ; Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz 1999 ), industrial (Ayres
1989 ) and anthropogenic metabolism (Baccini and Brunner 1991 ).
Modelling methods that incorporate anthropogenic stocks and fl ows can trace
their lineage back to the early works of Forrester ( 1958 ), but examples where social
metabolism and material and energy fl ow accounting are united with dynamic stock
analysis are rare (Baccini and Bader 1996 ; Müller et al. 2004 ; Lennox et al. 2005 ;
Müller 2006 ; Baynes et al. 2009 ; Müller et al. 2013 ; Pauliuk and Müller 2014 ).
Even within that handful, few talk of the services from stocks that are germane to
our discussion on sustainable development.
There are a number of proponents of this integrated thinking and there is a natural application in urban systems . The ‘Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems
Framework’ of Ramaswami et al. ( 2012 ) begins with questions of urban sustainability and expands to the same scope as the socio-economic metabolism framework. They specifi cally include services from internal and ‘trans-boundary’
infrastructures, but the key difference from the socio-economic metabolism framework lies in the dynamic treatment of stocks in-use in the latter. In the following
sections, we discuss key features of the socio-economic metabolism framework
(hereafter the ‘metabolic framework’ or approach) – see Fig. 6.2 .
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller
2005 ) and IMAGE (Stehfest et al. 2014 ) models – but they do not account rigorously for materials and the dynamics of fl ows from stocks at the end of life. The
existing assessment and modelling frameworks are not lacking in scope – they
include many sectors of society in detail – but often in-use stock dynamics and
cross-sectoral linkages are absent (e.g. Allwood et al. ( 2010 )). Moreover, studies of
material fl ows and models of aggregate stocks (Davis et al. 2010 ) rarely couple the
material fl ow to a capital stock that has both a direct energy effi ciency characteristic
in operation and an indirect energy and emissions requirement in its own construction. These issues are also addressed in Chap. 8 .
In this chapter, we discuss a socio-economic metabolic framework that can represent the interlinked nature of sustainable development and climate change mitigation from a physical perspective. It incorporates stocks and fl ows of infrastructures,
materials, energy and emissions as well as their multiple linkages through processes
that are treated using mass and energy balances. This allows for a representation of
feedbacks and delays in these material and energy connections through recycling
and maintenance. The metabolic framework is not intended to replace the energy
and emissions framework, but rather expands it in order to reconcile CCM with
sustainable development, to understand the side effects of CCM (co-benefi ts and
risks) and thereby identify effective mitigation pathways.
2 A Socio-economic Metabolism Framework
The concept of socio-economic metabolism is relatively young in the literature.
Here we interpret the term in an inclusive sense that is synonymous with social
(Fischer-Kowalski 1998 ; Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz 1999 ), industrial (Ayres
1989 ) and anthropogenic metabolism (Baccini and Brunner 1991 ).
Modelling methods that incorporate anthropogenic stocks and fl ows can trace
their lineage back to the early works of Forrester ( 1958 ), but examples where social
metabolism and material and energy fl ow accounting are united with dynamic stock
analysis are rare (Baccini and Bader 1996 ; Müller et al. 2004 ; Lennox et al. 2005 ;
Müller 2006 ; Baynes et al. 2009 ; Müller et al. 2013 ; Pauliuk and Müller 2014 ).
Even within that handful, few talk of the services from stocks that are germane to
our discussion on sustainable development.
There are a number of proponents of this integrated thinking and there is a natural application in urban systems . The ‘Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems
Framework’ of Ramaswami et al. ( 2012 ) begins with questions of urban sustainability and expands to the same scope as the socio-economic metabolism framework. They specifi cally include services from internal and ‘trans-boundary’
infrastructures, but the key difference from the socio-economic metabolism framework lies in the dynamic treatment of stocks in-use in the latter. In the following
sections, we discuss key features of the socio-economic metabolism framework
(hereafter the ‘metabolic framework’ or approach) – see Fig. 6.2 .
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller