296
The need for such systems thinking and macro-level approaches, enabling us to
predict and avoid unintended environmental consequences of growth and strategic
choices (as discussed in Chap. 2 ), is amply illustrated by the example of biofuels.
‘ IPCC (200 7) highlighted the large potential for biofuels to meet the growing energy
needs as well as contributing to GHG emissions reduction, especially in the transportation sector. Escalating oil prices and the uncertainty about sustained oil supplies further added to the growing interest on biofuels’ (Ravindranath et al. 2009 ).
As such, a number of governments developed policies and fi nancial incentives to
encourage the production and use of biofuels. Unfortunately, large scale expansion
of biofuel crops has led to land use change ( LUC ), notably the conversion of natural lands such as peatlands, forests and grasslands to the production of biofuel
crops. ‘Studies have shown that the possible GHG emissions from the induced
LUC can substantially infl uence the climate benefi t of biofuels production and use
(Leemans et al. 1996 ; Schlamadinger et al. 2001 ; Fargione et al. 2008 ; Searchinger
et al. 2008 ; Gibbs et al. 2008 ) […] Fargione et al. ( 2008 ) shows that land-use conversion from native land-uses to biofuel crops leads consistently to signifi cant
GHG emissions and a negative carbon balance, or carbon-debt, for many years’
(Ravindranath et al. 2009 ).
3.1 Conceptual Basis for Developing Scientifi c Approaches
Several conceptual systems-level frameworks and theories already exist, such as
Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996 ), Carrying Capacity (Rees and
Wackernagal 1994 ) and ‘Limits to Growth’ (Meadows et al. 1972 ), but by far the
most promising as a guiding concept for developments in data, modelling and contextualisation of environmental assessment is the Planetary Boundaries (PB) concept (Rockström et al. 2009a , b ; Steffen et al. 2015 ). This concept stands out for a
number of reasons:
1. The positive framing of a ‘safe operating space’ or an ‘earth system stability
domain’ is helpful in a corporate innovation context. Planetary Boundaries
fi rmly establishes the principle of ‘absolute sustainability’, attempting to set limits on how much impact or change can be tolerated in various PB categories
before boundaries are transgressed and the Earth system moves outside of the set
of parameters that are deemed ‘safe’ for humanity (into a ‘danger zone’) and
beyond which global change is likely to have profound negative consequences
for us. However, unlike other concepts such as ‘Limits to Growth’, it does not
make assumptions about human ingenuity in terms of technology. As noted by
Steffen et al. ( 2015 ), ‘the PB approach is embedded in this emerging social context [rapid increase in human pressures on the planet], but it does not suggest
how to manoeuvre within the safe operating space in the quest for global sustainability.’ Rather we can view PB as presenting the context for transformative
innovation.
S. Sim et al.
The need for such systems thinking and macro-level approaches, enabling us to
predict and avoid unintended environmental consequences of growth and strategic
choices (as discussed in Chap. 2 ), is amply illustrated by the example of biofuels.
‘ IPCC (200 7) highlighted the large potential for biofuels to meet the growing energy
needs as well as contributing to GHG emissions reduction, especially in the transportation sector. Escalating oil prices and the uncertainty about sustained oil supplies further added to the growing interest on biofuels’ (Ravindranath et al. 2009 ).
As such, a number of governments developed policies and fi nancial incentives to
encourage the production and use of biofuels. Unfortunately, large scale expansion
of biofuel crops has led to land use change ( LUC ), notably the conversion of natural lands such as peatlands, forests and grasslands to the production of biofuel
crops. ‘Studies have shown that the possible GHG emissions from the induced
LUC can substantially infl uence the climate benefi t of biofuels production and use
(Leemans et al. 1996 ; Schlamadinger et al. 2001 ; Fargione et al. 2008 ; Searchinger
et al. 2008 ; Gibbs et al. 2008 ) […] Fargione et al. ( 2008 ) shows that land-use conversion from native land-uses to biofuel crops leads consistently to signifi cant
GHG emissions and a negative carbon balance, or carbon-debt, for many years’
(Ravindranath et al. 2009 ).
3.1 Conceptual Basis for Developing Scientifi c Approaches
Several conceptual systems-level frameworks and theories already exist, such as
Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996 ), Carrying Capacity (Rees and
Wackernagal 1994 ) and ‘Limits to Growth’ (Meadows et al. 1972 ), but by far the
most promising as a guiding concept for developments in data, modelling and contextualisation of environmental assessment is the Planetary Boundaries (PB) concept (Rockström et al. 2009a , b ; Steffen et al. 2015 ). This concept stands out for a
number of reasons:
1. The positive framing of a ‘safe operating space’ or an ‘earth system stability
domain’ is helpful in a corporate innovation context. Planetary Boundaries
fi rmly establishes the principle of ‘absolute sustainability’, attempting to set limits on how much impact or change can be tolerated in various PB categories
before boundaries are transgressed and the Earth system moves outside of the set
of parameters that are deemed ‘safe’ for humanity (into a ‘danger zone’) and
beyond which global change is likely to have profound negative consequences
for us. However, unlike other concepts such as ‘Limits to Growth’, it does not
make assumptions about human ingenuity in terms of technology. As noted by
Steffen et al. ( 2015 ), ‘the PB approach is embedded in this emerging social context [rapid increase in human pressures on the planet], but it does not suggest
how to manoeuvre within the safe operating space in the quest for global sustainability.’ Rather we can view PB as presenting the context for transformative
innovation.
S. Sim et al.