122
situation in the future, there will likely be a need for both an increase in the fl ow of
energy and a change to the distribution of its use. This, of course, would need to be
monitored, but it also begets the question of how this change will occur, and we are
immediately drawn into the need to include the energy producing and consuming
stocks in the future analysis, their interconnection and the materials that those
stocks require for operation (and, in the complete picture, the energy effi ciency of
those stocks and the energy embodied in their constituent materials).
1
An energy analysis is basically linear (thermodynamics prevents energy from
being truly recycled in feedback loops). The energy and emissions fl ow emphasis of
most integrated assessment models has lead analysts to view opportunities for climate change mitigation as if sectors operated separately. Energy fl ows into a sector;
it is used in production and transformed into waste heat; and local or upstream GHG
emissions are co-produced. Yet industrial materials are used in transport and building stocks, and building stocks are part of the capital stock of industry. Clearly,
emission mitigation schemes in different sectors are interrelated.
The fl ow of materials shown in Fig. 6.2 reveals connections between sectors and
shows how energy-using sectors are dependent. Furthermore, it represents physical
feedbacks – material recycling – that highlight the importance of circular relations
in production. Lastly, the metabolic picture reveals many more potential intervention points, within and across sectors, than in the linear conception of energy and
emissions accounting in Fig. 6.1 .
2.2 Materials
To record energy fl ows independent of materials is to mute half of the story of social
metabolism. Material fl ows, as in the economy-wide material fl ow accounting
EWMFA (EUROSTAT 2009 ) and as feedback fl ows in recycled material from
stocks, are an essential component of the metabolic framework (see Chap. 8 ), and it
is important to track material fl ows along with energy use. Materials production is
an important energy user, and the production of energy technologies depends on
many critical materials.
While a large portion of energy is consumed directly in providing services like
thermal comfort, lighting, communication or entertainment, industry accounts for
more than 32 % of global fi nal energy use
2 (115EJ in 2005). Production of just fi ve
materials – cement, iron and steel, chemicals, pulp and paper and aluminium – accounts
for more than half of industrial energy use (Global Energy Assessment 2012 ).
While still acknowledging the importance of energy fl ows in climate change
mitigation, we must also recognise that energy is inextricably linked to material
fl ows and in-use stocks. For instance, the consumption of hot clean water involves
1 These issues are addressed from a ‘Global South’ perspective in Chap. 12 .
2 This includes fi nal electricity consumption in arc furnaces and smelters that ultimately requires a
great deal more upstream primary energy.
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller
situation in the future, there will likely be a need for both an increase in the fl ow of
energy and a change to the distribution of its use. This, of course, would need to be
monitored, but it also begets the question of how this change will occur, and we are
immediately drawn into the need to include the energy producing and consuming
stocks in the future analysis, their interconnection and the materials that those
stocks require for operation (and, in the complete picture, the energy effi ciency of
those stocks and the energy embodied in their constituent materials).
1
An energy analysis is basically linear (thermodynamics prevents energy from
being truly recycled in feedback loops). The energy and emissions fl ow emphasis of
most integrated assessment models has lead analysts to view opportunities for climate change mitigation as if sectors operated separately. Energy fl ows into a sector;
it is used in production and transformed into waste heat; and local or upstream GHG
emissions are co-produced. Yet industrial materials are used in transport and building stocks, and building stocks are part of the capital stock of industry. Clearly,
emission mitigation schemes in different sectors are interrelated.
The fl ow of materials shown in Fig. 6.2 reveals connections between sectors and
shows how energy-using sectors are dependent. Furthermore, it represents physical
feedbacks – material recycling – that highlight the importance of circular relations
in production. Lastly, the metabolic picture reveals many more potential intervention points, within and across sectors, than in the linear conception of energy and
emissions accounting in Fig. 6.1 .
2.2 Materials
To record energy fl ows independent of materials is to mute half of the story of social
metabolism. Material fl ows, as in the economy-wide material fl ow accounting
EWMFA (EUROSTAT 2009 ) and as feedback fl ows in recycled material from
stocks, are an essential component of the metabolic framework (see Chap. 8 ), and it
is important to track material fl ows along with energy use. Materials production is
an important energy user, and the production of energy technologies depends on
many critical materials.
While a large portion of energy is consumed directly in providing services like
thermal comfort, lighting, communication or entertainment, industry accounts for
more than 32 % of global fi nal energy use
2 (115EJ in 2005). Production of just fi ve
materials – cement, iron and steel, chemicals, pulp and paper and aluminium – accounts
for more than half of industrial energy use (Global Energy Assessment 2012 ).
While still acknowledging the importance of energy fl ows in climate change
mitigation, we must also recognise that energy is inextricably linked to material
fl ows and in-use stocks. For instance, the consumption of hot clean water involves
1 These issues are addressed from a ‘Global South’ perspective in Chap. 12 .
2 This includes fi nal electricity consumption in arc furnaces and smelters that ultimately requires a
great deal more upstream primary energy.
T.M. Baynes and D.B. Müller