Lectures and notes
Society’s Metabolism
Industrial Ecology, first quarter
Structure:
- Sources
- Impacts
- Metabolism
- Solution space
Lecture 1 – Society’s Metabolism 2021
First attempt at society’s metabolism: 1894 in Berlin Weyl looked at
everyone’s dietary intake and tried to calculate the metabolism of Berlin
1965: concept of metabolism brought into city function Abel Wolman
1969: Robert Ayres and Allen Kneese externalities exist when the
actions of one person or entity affect the existence and wellbeing of
another which things society needs to function
- “Almost all standard economic theory is concerned with services,
material objects carry these services. Economic activities have
residuals at both production and consumption side. Residuals from
these processes remain and they usally render disservices rather
than services”
2021: From industrial metabolism to industrial ecology. IE draws an
analogy between industrial systems and natural systems, and the idea
that applying knowledge can help for sustainable industrial systems.
(1995, Greadel and Alllenby?) – there are also other definitions.
Industrial Ecology object of study is society, in terms of flows and stocks
of materials and energy: society’s metabolism. Also known as the
technosphere and the physical economy.
- Local scale: urban metabolism: collection of complex sociotechnical
and socio-ecological processes by which flows are materials, energy,
people and information shape the city, needs of its populace and
impact the surrounding hinterland
Tipping point: where a small change makes a big change in the system
When did the Anthropocene start? ‘discovery’ of the US, industrial
revolution, latter part of the 18 th century where ice cores showed the
beginning of increased CO2 and CH4 concentrations (the great
acceleration)
Lecture 2 – Economics of Society’s metabolism
GDP (Gross Domestic Product): the value added of goods and services
that have been added within a country’s border (economy) in a specific
period (year)
- Not a measure of well-being or happiness
, - Insufficient to even consider all services and value added (childcare,
informal sector etc)
- No consideration of natural capital or services (e.g. enjoying nature)
- No consideration of inter-generational welfare – insufficient
consideration of any sustainability dimension
- HOWEVER it’s strongly correlated to a lot of welfare indicators!
o Economists therefore came up with new narratives: Welfare
Economics, Environmental Economics, Climate Economics
o This differs a lot per country, e.g. French appreciate leisure
time more than Americans
IPATIdentity (1972): impact = population * affluence * technology
- Affluence = goods&servies/population
- Technology = impact/goods&services
- Population has a large effect growth rates can be curved with
education
- Goods&services/population depends on consumer patterns
- Impact is dependent on technology, e.g. ‘old’ underground mines vs
impact have a large impact difference
Kaya identity: case-specific for global GHG
- CO2 = population * (iets??)
- Not very accurate - No consideration where population or economic
activity has grown
- Not a causal relationship
- No consideration where impacts are
- - generalized and aggregated, a simplified perspective
- Interaction of factors not considered
o E.g. GDP growth might be going hand in hand with changes in
industries.
o BUT: informative for politicians
IPAT and Kaya do NOT present a causal relationship, they don’t show
where the impacts are
GDP stable inflow of money in the economy. Politics are very
dependent on GDP for public budgets etc. A decoupling is harder than it
seems: “GDP lock”
GDP lock-in
- Tax system is dependent on value added and ‘money earned’
- GDP is very convenient
- Government has more ‘abilities’ to make changes if there’s a higher
tax inflow
- There might be a political TAX lock-in into GDP
So it’s not about measureing wefare adequately, its about decoupling
politics and public budgets from GDP tax dependence (if you’d want that)
how could such a system be defined? Hard
Society’s Metabolism
Industrial Ecology, first quarter
Structure:
- Sources
- Impacts
- Metabolism
- Solution space
Lecture 1 – Society’s Metabolism 2021
First attempt at society’s metabolism: 1894 in Berlin Weyl looked at
everyone’s dietary intake and tried to calculate the metabolism of Berlin
1965: concept of metabolism brought into city function Abel Wolman
1969: Robert Ayres and Allen Kneese externalities exist when the
actions of one person or entity affect the existence and wellbeing of
another which things society needs to function
- “Almost all standard economic theory is concerned with services,
material objects carry these services. Economic activities have
residuals at both production and consumption side. Residuals from
these processes remain and they usally render disservices rather
than services”
2021: From industrial metabolism to industrial ecology. IE draws an
analogy between industrial systems and natural systems, and the idea
that applying knowledge can help for sustainable industrial systems.
(1995, Greadel and Alllenby?) – there are also other definitions.
Industrial Ecology object of study is society, in terms of flows and stocks
of materials and energy: society’s metabolism. Also known as the
technosphere and the physical economy.
- Local scale: urban metabolism: collection of complex sociotechnical
and socio-ecological processes by which flows are materials, energy,
people and information shape the city, needs of its populace and
impact the surrounding hinterland
Tipping point: where a small change makes a big change in the system
When did the Anthropocene start? ‘discovery’ of the US, industrial
revolution, latter part of the 18 th century where ice cores showed the
beginning of increased CO2 and CH4 concentrations (the great
acceleration)
Lecture 2 – Economics of Society’s metabolism
GDP (Gross Domestic Product): the value added of goods and services
that have been added within a country’s border (economy) in a specific
period (year)
- Not a measure of well-being or happiness
, - Insufficient to even consider all services and value added (childcare,
informal sector etc)
- No consideration of natural capital or services (e.g. enjoying nature)
- No consideration of inter-generational welfare – insufficient
consideration of any sustainability dimension
- HOWEVER it’s strongly correlated to a lot of welfare indicators!
o Economists therefore came up with new narratives: Welfare
Economics, Environmental Economics, Climate Economics
o This differs a lot per country, e.g. French appreciate leisure
time more than Americans
IPATIdentity (1972): impact = population * affluence * technology
- Affluence = goods&servies/population
- Technology = impact/goods&services
- Population has a large effect growth rates can be curved with
education
- Goods&services/population depends on consumer patterns
- Impact is dependent on technology, e.g. ‘old’ underground mines vs
impact have a large impact difference
Kaya identity: case-specific for global GHG
- CO2 = population * (iets??)
- Not very accurate - No consideration where population or economic
activity has grown
- Not a causal relationship
- No consideration where impacts are
- - generalized and aggregated, a simplified perspective
- Interaction of factors not considered
o E.g. GDP growth might be going hand in hand with changes in
industries.
o BUT: informative for politicians
IPAT and Kaya do NOT present a causal relationship, they don’t show
where the impacts are
GDP stable inflow of money in the economy. Politics are very
dependent on GDP for public budgets etc. A decoupling is harder than it
seems: “GDP lock”
GDP lock-in
- Tax system is dependent on value added and ‘money earned’
- GDP is very convenient
- Government has more ‘abilities’ to make changes if there’s a higher
tax inflow
- There might be a political TAX lock-in into GDP
So it’s not about measureing wefare adequately, its about decoupling
politics and public budgets from GDP tax dependence (if you’d want that)
how could such a system be defined? Hard
