Factor X for Subtle Policy-Making Objectives, Potentials and Obstacles Karl-Henrik Robèrt The Natural Step Foundation; Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, Sweden
John Holmberg Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany We have studied the Factor X concept through an imagined future lens provided by a framework of basic principles for sustainability for the whole ecosphere. From such a backcasting perspective, three areas seem to be of particular importance when it comes to an application of the Factor X concept for sustainable development: 1. A sufficiently large perspective. The Factor X concept should encourage policymakers to think big in terms of resource productivity gains. At the same time, it should avoid the ‘technical fix’ trap, by continuously relating various flows to social as well as ecological aspects of sustainability in the whole ecosphere. 2. Qualitative aspects. The factor by which a certain flow needs to be reduced to stay within the assimilation capacity of the ecosystems differs widely depending on what flows we study. Still other aspects of sustainability are not quantitative at all, and need other indicators. 3. Dynamic aspects. In order to reduce certain flows, other flows may need to be increased. Rebound effects create a similar problem. A certain flow within a system may increase as a rebound effect to reduced flows within a subsystem. It is important to look at the environmental consequences for secondary flows in a dynamic way, and to always consider sustainability regarding all flows as the objective.
● Factor X ● Factor 4 ● Factor 10 ● Eco-efficiency ● Transmaterialisation ● Dematerialisation ● Sustainability ● Backcasting ● Sustainability ● Sustainable development
Karl-Henrik Robèrt, MD, PhD is a cancer scientist from Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and founder of the international NGO, The Natural Step. In 1995 he was appointed Adjunct Professor of Resource Theory at the University of Göteborg and Chalmers University, Sweden. In 1999 he received The Global Green USA award and in 2000 was the winner of The Blue Planet Prize.
u
The Natural Step Foundation, Wallingatan 22, SE-111 24 Stockholm, Sweden
!
[email protected]
John Holmberg is Assistant Professor at the Department of Physical Resource Theory at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. He holds an MSc in engineering physics and a PhD in physical resource theory. He has directed scientific projects on principles and indicators for sustainability, sustainable use of energy and industrial ecology. He is scientific director for and strategic advisor to The Natural Step Foundation.
u
Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
! u
[email protected]
Dr Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker has held positions as Founding President of the University of Kassel, Director at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, Director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy, and President of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Since October 1998 he has been a member of the German Parliament. In 1989 he received the Italian Premio De Natura and in October 1996 the Duke of Edinburgh Gold Medal of WWF International. Among his publications is Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use.
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, PO Box 100480, D-42004 Wuppertal, Germany
25
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
T
he factor 4 and factor 10 concepts, both originating from the
Wuppertal Institute, have gained widespread acceptance as creative concepts for the reduction of resource throughput in the economy. The Factor 4 concept was spread by the Club of Rome report, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (von Weizsäcker et al. 1995, 1997), in which a large number of examples illustrate that at least four times as much wealth can be extracted from the energy and material resources we use. The Factor 10 concept (Schmidt-Bleek 1994, 1997) focuses on materials, and assumes that material turnovers should be reduced by at least 50% on a worldwide basis in order to avoid a systematic degradation of the biosphere. Since per capita consumption is about five times higher in OECD countries than in developing countries, and further increase in world population is unavoidable, Schmidt-Bleek says that sustainable levels of material flows will not be reached unless and until the material intensity of the OECD countries is reduced by a factor of ten. Based on these considerations, Schmidt-Bleek has taken the initiative of founding the ‘Factor 10 Club’ of prominent environmentalists subscribing to that goal (Factor 10 Club 1995). The Factor X concept has so far mainly been used as a ‘snapshot description’ of an existing situation. The purpose of this paper is to study the potential for, and obstacles to, applying the Factor X concept to moving towards sustainability. What aspects of sustainable development are covered by the Factor X concept? Could the concept be elaborated to cover more aspects? How should it be used to best indicate those aspects? What aspects of sustainability need to be covered by other tools? The method we use to answer these questions is to relate the Factor X concept to a framework for sustainable development. This framework, presented briefly in the next section, is described in more detail in previous publications (Holmberg et al. 1996; Robèrt et al. 1997; Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). It consists of two parts: 1. A future frame of sustainability, specified by first-order principles for sustainability 2. Planning through backcasting (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000) from this frame. This means starting the planning procedure from a future perspective built on the assumption that the basic principles for sustainability are met. Thereafter, planning and evaluation of tools and measures occurs in retrospect from the future visions: ‘What can we do today to optimise our chances of getting there?’ This methodology introduces a time-axis between existing circumstances and the future frame that is helpful for the handling of dynamic effects and trade-offs in a strategic way. In a later section, the Factor X concept is studied from the framework given below.
A framework for sustainability and sustainable development Backcasting is a planning methodology that is particularly helpful when problems at hand are complex and when present trends are part of the problems. If today’s problems, and restrictions based on what is considered ‘realistic’ today with respect to solutions, are allowed to be the main basis for planning, the sources of the problems may be carried into the future. The risk of this happening is particularly pronounced when today’s trends—determining what is perceived as realistic—are the main drivers of the problems (Dreborg 1996): today’s energy systems, today’s transport distances, today’s prices and taxes, today’s accounting system for the national economy (GNP) and so on. When applied to planning towards sustainability, backcasting from a frame/vision of ecological and social sustainability in the whole ecosphere can increase the likelihood of handling the ecologically complex issues in a systematic and dynamic way, and avoid running into blind alleys due to restricted perspectives. It is also helpful in foreseeing
26
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
certain changes in the market, even from a self-beneficial point of view, and increases the chances of relatively strong economic performance (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). Since there is probably no limit to the number of possible designs of sustainable societies, the definition of sustainability—for the purpose of backcasting—must be founded on a principles level. Backcasting should be performed from a set of non-overlapping principles that are general enough to be helpful in the co-ordination of different sectors of society and in business, as well as covering relevant aspects of sustainability. Such principles are also helpful when developing reliable tools and indicators for monitoring development. Since the concept of sustainability becomes relevant only as we understand the nonsustainability inherent in some human activities, it is logical to design principles for sustainability as restrictions: that is, principles that determine what human activities must not do. In what principal ways could we destroy the ecosphere’s ability to sustain us? With an added ‘not’, such principles would be conditions for the system ecosphere/ society: ‘system conditions’ (Holmberg et al. 1996; Robèrt et al. 1997; Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). Humans can destroy the functions and biodiversity of the ecosphere1 by: 1. A systematic increase in concentration of matter that is net-introduced into the ecosphere from outside sources 2. A systematic increase in concentration of matter that is produced within the ecosphere 3. A systematic physical deterioration (harvesting and manipulation) of the ecosphere’s ability to utilise waste as building blocks for primary production, and to provide other essential functions The four system conditions specify how to avoid the destruction of the ecosphere, by adding a negation to these principles for destruction: In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing . . . 1. Concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust 2. Concentrations of substances produced by society 3. Degradation by physical means and, in that society . . . 4. Human needs are met worldwide. Together, the first three basic principles provide a framework for ecological sustainability that implies a set of restrictions within which sustainable societal activities must be incorporated. Based on that reasoning, a fourth basic principle for the society’s internal turnover of resources is formulated: the fourth system condition.
Applying the system conditions for planning I. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to accumulation of lithospheric material is covered by the first principle. The strategic question for planning is: Does our organisation systematically decrease its economic dependence on fossil fuels, and on mining,
1 The ecosphere contains the biosphere, the atmosphere (including the protective stratospheric ozone
layer), the hydrosphere and the pedosphere (the free layer of soils above the bedrock).
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
27
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
to cover for losses of minerals, for instance due to dissipative use, particularly of scarce minerals that are already increasing in concentration in the ecosphere? The balance of flows between the ecosphere and the lithosphere must be such that concentrations of substances from the lithosphere do not systematically increase in the whole ecosphere, or in parts of it. Besides the upstream influence on this balance through the amounts of mining and choices of mined minerals (where the Factor X concept can be applied directly), the balance can be influenced by the quality of final deposits, and the societal competence to technically safeguard the flows through recycling and other measures. What concentration can be accepted in the long run depends on properties such as ecotoxicity—here taken in a broad sense to include effects on the geophysical systems—and bioaccumulation. Due to the complexity and delay mechanisms in the ecosphere, it is often very difficult to foresee what concentration will lead to unacceptable consequences. A general rule is not to allow societally caused deviations from the natural state that are large in comparison with natural fluctuations. In particular, such deviations should not be allowed to increase systematically. Therefore, what must at least be achieved is a stop to systematic increases in concentration. Depending on the characteristics of the substance and the recipient, the critical concentrations differ. This must be taken into account when we consider flows and develop monitoring schemes (see next section). II. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to accumulation of substances produced in society is covered by the second principle. The strategic question for planning is: Does our organisation systematically decrease its economic dependence on persistent unnatural substances and natural substances that are currently accumulating systematically in parts of— or the whole—ecosphere? The flows of societally produced molecules and nuclides to the ecosphere must not be so large that they can neither be integrated into the natural cycles within the ecosphere, nor be deposited safely into the lithosphere. The balance of flows must be such that concentrations of substances produced in society do not systematically increase in the whole ecosphere or in parts of it. Besides the upstream influence on this balance through production volumes (where the Factor X concept can be used directly) and characteristics of what is produced, such as degradability of the produced substances, the balance can be influenced by the quality of final deposits, and the societal competence to technically safeguard the flows through measures such as recycling and incineration. As with metals, the complexity of qualitative differences between various compounds puts high demands on a subtle use of the Factor X concept to guide decisions about the flows. III. The societal influence on the ecosphere due to manipulation and harvesting of funds and flows within the ecosphere is covered by the third principle. The strategic question for planning is: Does our organisation decrease its economic dependence on activities that physically reduce the long-term productivity and biodiversity of the ecosphere? This condition implies that the resource basis for: (a) productivity in the ecosphere such as fertile areas, thickness and quality of soils, availability of fresh-water; and (b) biodiversity is not systematically deteriorated by over-harvesting, mismanagement or displacement. Again, the complexity is high, and Factor X can play different roles as illustrated later in this paper. IV. The internal societal metabolism and the production of services to humans are covered by the fourth principle. The strategic question for planning is: Does our organisation contribute as much as we can to the meeting of human needs in our society and worldwide,
28
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
over and above all the substitution and dematerialisation measures taken in meeting the first three objectives? If the societal ambition is to meet human needs worldwide today and in the future, while conforming to the restrictions with regard to available resources given by the first three principles, then the use of resources must be efficient in meeting these needs. So, it will not be sufficient to strive for the dematerialisations needed to comply with the first three system conditions. This means that, if the perspective is sufficiently broad, social sustainability implies improved means of dealing with social issues such as equity, fairness and population growth. It is an inefficient use of resources, from the perspective of humanity, if one billion people starve and lack access to safe drinking water, while at the same time another billion use excessive amounts of resources for low-value activities such as sitting in traffic jams. Taken together, the first three system conditions define an ecological framework for any sustainable society, and the fourth principle is the basic social condition. It interacts with the other three in a dynamic way (see below). Knowing these basic principles of sustainability also makes it easier to draw the conclusions upstream in cause–effect chains, at the source of problems. Considering the principle of conservation of matter, what is introduced into society has a tendency to eventually leak out into the ecosystems. Consequently, from a backcasting perspective, the question ‘Do we still use persistent unnatural compounds?’ should have at least as high a priority as ‘Do we emit ecotoxic substances?’. CFCs, for instance, are often used in ‘closed’ technical systems, and are non-toxic and non-bioaccumulative. The Factor X concept is easy to apply for planning and monitoring of such ‘upstream’ flows (demand side), but as we shall see in the coming section, other levels and aspects of the flows must also be considered in a dynamic way. The framework of sustainability given by the system conditions is applied by a growing number of business corporations and municipalities. It is done through backcasting from a future vision that is built on the assumption that the organisation has succeeded in meeting the principles of sustainability (i.e. the organisation is not contributing to the overall violation of the principles in the ecosphere). Thereafter, a programme for transition is planned in retrospect from the future visions: ‘What shall we do today to optimise our chances of getting there?’ (writing the ‘future history’ of the organisation) (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). The transition is undertaken as a strategic step-by-step approach, where each investment should combine two characteristics: 1. A technically flexible platform for future investments in line with the system conditions 2. Likely to produce return on investment soon enough to fertilise the further process according to (1)
The Factor X concept from a sustainability perspective In this section we discuss how the Factor X concept relates to the framework of sustainability and sustainable development, described above. It follows that the first three principles of sustainability set physical restraints, a frame, for sustainable resource flows. And it is obvious that the Factor X concept is about how the dematerialisation aspect of all four system conditions—higher resource efficiency to comply not only with ecological sustainability but also with social sustainability—can be addressed in a concrete way. Though ‘meeting human needs worldwide’ (system condition 4) holds a value in itself, it is also a logical principle if society is to meet the first three principles. If we
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
29
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
waste resources per utility unit, and if we have social injustices with regard to local and global resource distribution, the ecologically unsustainable consequences are more or less inevitable. The result will be excess turnover of resources, leading to increased concentrations of polluting compounds (system conditions 1 and 2), and it will be difficult or impossible to live from nature’s ‘interest’ rather than its ‘capital’ (system condition 3). Conversely, if we are more efficient—technically and socially—more services to meet more human needs can be provided for a given level of influence on nature, thereby making it easier to adapt societal flows to the frame given by the first three system conditions. This approach also implies improved means for dealing with population growth. The Factor X concept directly deals with the ‘efficiency’ part of all system conditions: dematerialisation. It is also relevant, indirectly, for the substitutions needed—transmaterialisation—particularly when those are expensive (see below). If the term ‘per utility unit’ also involves a subtle discussion of human needs and social fairness (i.e. if we would account a higher utility rate when social standards are improved at a large enough scale), the Factor X concept can also be utilised to relate to system condition 4.
The Factor X concept applied for transmaterialisation We can work directly with the first three principles through substitution: that is, changing to new types of materials and resource flows (transmaterialisation) with fewer inherent risks of violating those principles. This means that we consider the qualities of our chosen material flows in order to avoid increasing concentrations (system conditions 1 and 2) and encroaching on productive ecosystems (system condition 3). Such considerations require specific types of measures and indicators. For instance, substituting the use of metals that are very scarce in the ecosystems for metals that are more abundant greatly reduces the future risks of increased concentrations in ecosystems (system condition 1) (Azar et al. 1996). The same is true for substituting persistent and unnatural compounds for compounds that occur naturally or that are easily degradable (system condition 2), or changing suppliers of renewable resources from production sites without ecological standards to suppliers with advanced technologies for sustainable harvests (system condition 3). For such substitutions, the Factor X concept could serve a very valuable indirect function for planning, since proactive substitutions often create higher costs, at least in the beginning when the production volumes are still relatively low. The Factor X concept, aiming at dematerialisation, can be applied to make the relatively more expensive alternatives ‘affordable’. To what factor must these new flows be reduced to meet the economic restraints implicit in these relatively more expensive alternatives? For instance, to what factor would flows need to be reduced to make relatively more expensive plastics affordable: plastics that are produced from renewable fibres (system condition 1), that do not contain persistent unnatural additives (system condition 2), and that have additives defined so that the plastic can be recycled at high quality levels (system conditions 1 and 2).
The factor concept applied for dematerialisation We can also work with the first three system conditions through dematerialisations of resource flows. This is relevant when transmaterialisation is impossible, when it will be insufficient, or when an optimal substitution is already undertaken. It is important to stress that the Factor X concept can be used to monitor not only flows of matter, but also of energy. However, from an ecological sustainability perspective (system conditions
30
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
1–3), energy per se is seldom the problem. It is instead the energy carrier—for instance, emissions from the fuels (system conditions 1 and 2)—that constitutes the real environmental threat, although the necessary physical manipulation also creates significant problems—for instance, strip-mining and hydropower dam construction (system condition 3). So, although the amount of energy used in society is an interesting indicator for sustainable development, it is an indirect indicator. If the Factor X concept is applied for the flows of energy (for instance, more and more energy-efficient technologies), it is important to relate the result to a reduced flow of energy carriers and to the physical manipulation that is directly or indirectly associated with the energy flows. The risk of using non-renewable energy (e.g. emission of carbon dioxide, radioactive elements, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, metals) as well as renewable energy (e.g. possible loss of biodiversity and soil erosion in extensive bio-energy plantations) is connected to both the material use and the physical manipulation. This means that the system conditions underlie the idea of ‘reducing societal use of energy’, and the result from any reduction of energy should be related to the corresponding effect on the system conditions. From a sustainability perspective, there are risks for misjudgement if this is neglected. Besides the risk of jumping from one problem to another—for instance, destroying biodiversity in a forest (bio-fuel source) in spite of a reduction in the use of energy—too strict a focus on energy may also lead to unnecessary restrictions for the use of energy. It might be acceptable to use nonrenewable energy in a sustainable society, even if it is used until the resource is depleted. There is, for instance, an ongoing discussion and experimentation on the possibility of sequestering carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in old natural gas wells or aquifers (Williams 1996). These aspects of energy and matter, respectively, are very important when backcasting from a state of sustainability is applied to the planning process. In accordance with the above, it is then important to remember that from a sustainability perspective the future benchmark is clear: resource flows must be dematerialised enough to meet the first three system conditions, that is, stay within the ecological tolerance limits. If the focus on energy in today’s situation is so prominent that flows of matter from a backcasting perspective are neglected, there are risks that the Factor X concept will be applied too narrowly, disregarding scale and dynamic effects of material flows (system conditions 1–3). Higher energy efficiency—for example, in car engines—does not automatically lead to reduced flows of the energy carrier such as petroleum, not even with the individual user. So far, we have used the higher efficiency in car production and in cars to run more cars longer and faster; fuel consumption has increased, even for the individual car owner (Schipper and Johnson 1993). Other dynamic effects are related to the economy. If fewer resources are needed per utility unit, the resource throughput may decrease on a limited scale and/or in the short term, only to increase again due to a decrease in prices (de Bruyn and Opschoor 1997). So, even if efficiency in the individual technical unit always would lead to a decreased throughput in that limited system unit, it would not necessarily support sustainability in the whole system. One example of this is the plan in China to start large-scale use of modern and efficient coal plants for generation of electricity. Still other dynamic effects are due to an inverse relationship between various flows. Decreased flows of one type may lead to increased flows of another. In order to reduce certain flows—for instance, fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere—other flows may need to be increased: for instance, new and lighter construction materials, or certain metals in photovoltaic cells.
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
31
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
Relating the Factor X concept to system condition 1 To avoid accumulation and increased concentrations of matter from the lithosphere, we need reductions of resource throughputs by different factors, depending on what flows from the lithosphere we study. To avoid increased concentrations of metals (system condition 1), for instance, we generally need to reduce the dissipative flows of scarce metals by higher factors than more abundant metals in order to stay within the assimilation capacity of the ecosystems. For the elaboration of indicators, we could, for instance, consider comparisons with the corresponding natural flows, which we have previously described (Azar et al. 1996). By what factor do we need to reduce this special metal flow in order to minimise the risk of violating system condition 1? By what different technical and societal measures, launched in a step-by-step fashion, could that factor reduction be achieved? As was mentioned above, the risks for increased concentrations of metals in nature are not only related to the abundance and qualities of the metals but also to the quality of the flow itself: that is, how the metals are used in society. If the Factor X concept is applied at the demand side, disregarding how the metals are going to be used in society, it will not distinguish between mined flows to build up a technical pool of the metal in society (for instance, in photovoltaic cells that are planned to be recycled) and mined flows to cover for losses of the metal (for instance, through dissipative use, corrosion or other types of loss). Also this aspect makes it important to apply the Factor X concept in a subtle way, by evaluating different flows individually, and through focusing at the right levels in the system. Other flows from the lithosphere—for instance, carbon emitted into the atmosphere from the lithosphere—can be handled in the same way by the Factor X concept. By what factor must we cut down on fossil fuels to stay within a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere (IPCC 1996)? By what different technical and societal measures, launched in a step-by-step fashion, could that factor reduction be achieved?
Relating the Factor X concept to system condition 2 The same rationale for achieving a stop to further accumulation and increases in concentration can be applied for compounds produced in society (system condition 2). Flows of compounds that are increasing in the ecosphere today need to be reduced by different factors depending on how much we are today exceeding the respective assimilation capacities. By what factor do we need to reduce this flow to meet system condition 2? By what different technical and societal measures could that factor reduction be achieved? Certain compounds that are persistent and foreign to nature, such as CFCs, should be phased out completely unless we are prepared to make large expenditures to safeguard the flows. It is doubtful whether the Factor X concept would be very helpful in that context. Theoretically, sub-goals could be expressed by factors (e.g. factor 4 in five years, factor 10 in eight years, etc.), but psychologically there is always a risk that decreases in flows by high factors will be regarded as sufficiently impressive achievements, despite the fact that the only adequate goal may be a complete phase-out within a short timeperiod. So, as with metals, the risks for increased concentrations of various persistent chemicals is related to how abundant the chemical normally is in nature. Persistent unnatural compounds would then (like very scarce heavy metals) constitute the highest risk. To focus on risks for increased concentrations rather than on effects is a way of avoiding problems—not just solving them once they have occurred. And, as with heavy metals, persistent unnatural compounds may continue to increase in nature even after a phaseout in production.
32
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
As with metals, the risks for concentration increases are also related to differences in the quality of the flows as such. How we use the chemicals, and the competence of society to safeguard chemical flows through measures such as recycling, deposits and incineration, is of crucial importance. Again, different flows must be evaluated individually, and through focusing at the right levels in the system.
Relating the Factor X concept to system condition 3 The Factor X concept can also be applied to meet very important aspects of system condition 3. By what factor must these resource flows from forests, crop-land or marine systems be reduced to stay within the sustaining capacity of the respective ecosystems? However, the third system condition can be violated through means other than overharvesting, and then the factor concept becomes even more indirect. If we consider, for instance, manipulation through expansion of roads and other parts of societies’ infrastructure, it may be relevant to ask questions such as: By what factor must we reduce these flows of cars to avoid the need for another road? Again, it is visions within a framework of sustainability that should be the starting point of the planning, whereafter the consequences for various flows can be determined. Still other aspects of system condition 3, such as choosing the most gentle techniques possible for the management of ecosystems, are not quantitative at all.
Relating the Factor X concept to system condition 4 Dematerialisation per se is not enough, not even if all the qualitative, quantitative and dynamic aspects of ecological sustainability described above are taken into account. The fourth principle means that the efficiency must also be related to human needs: that is, ‘soft issues’ such as fairness and equity must be regarded from a sufficiently large perspective. Used that way, ‘efficiency’ takes on another meaning beyond running processes faster or smoother by technological and ecological reasons. It is not within the scope of this paper to determine subtle limits for when human needs are met, or exactly at what level the distribution of resources could be called fair. At this point, this may also seem less important since there is plenty of work to be done until subtle distinctions of that kind become mandatory for sustainable development. If the perspective is large enough—that of humanity as a whole—it is not difficult to conclude that the use of resources is so unfair that it is inefficient by any norm. The marginal benefit from a sandwich is greater for a starving person than for someone on a diet. Today, around one billion people in poor countries are malnourished or starving and lack access to safe drinking water, while another billion in the rich world often spend exorbitant resources on items or activities that add little or no value to their lives. Resource efficiency to meet the needs of humanity goes beyond altruism, since indirect effects of inefficient resource use also have serious impacts on the rich part of the world: for example, destruction of rainforests, ‘eco-fugitives’, costs for the UN, social worries and crime. If we forget such aspects, the Factor X concept may lead to an over-emphasis on ‘technical-fix’ solutions. To be really valuable for the future, the Factor X concept should also be applied in a sufficiently broad social context. By what factor must these flows be increased in poor parts of the world to meet human needs worldwide, and by what factor must the same flows be cut back in the rich part of the world to make the transition possible?
Discussion and conclusion Factor X as a way of conceptualising ‘dematerialisation’ for sustainable development has so many advantages technically, and for policy-making and communication, that it has
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
33
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
gained widespread acceptance in a very short time. It is our experience that some policymakers have begun to regard Factor X (or ‘dematerialisation’ or ‘eco-efficiency’) as synonymous with sustainable development. This carries two risks. First, a diffuse definition of Factor X may lead to a loss in its potential to tackle various aspects of sustainable development. Second, too strong a linkage between sustainable development on the one hand with various terms for dematerialisation and efficiency on the other may result in decreased attention to other essential elements of sustainable development that are not connected to dematerialisation. To protect the Factor X concept from an inflated and diluted meaning, its full potential for sustainable development should be elaborated, and it should also be made clear what the Factor X concept does not include. The purpose of this paper is to study the Factor X concept as a tool for sustainable development. The methodology has been one of backcasting from a state of sustainability: that is, studying the Factor X concept through an imagined future lens, using a framework of basic principles for sustainability. What is Factor X, what can it be elaborated to do, and what aspects of sustainability need other tools and indicators? In planning for sustainability, backcasting from a framework of basic principles for sustainability is a strategy to find technical, economic and social paths for transition that avoid dead ends, and to deal with trade-offs in a conscious way (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000). A very essential part of the transition is about decreasing various flows to stay within the capacity of the ecocycles, while at the same time it is imperative for success that at least vital human needs are met. The Factor X concept provides an excellent tool that can be applied in this context. It can be used to select, study and monitor flexible and possible-to-develop investments, investments that are as solid platforms as possible for future investments. The application of Factor X in backcasting could, for instance, give rise to a number of options for our future infrastructure for communication. Then various options could be evaluated with regard to the potential reduction by factors. Which option holds the best future potential, cars run on bio-fuels from forestry, or on hydrogen from photovoltaic cells? Which option is most flexible with regard to other applications than in cars? By what factor could the consumption of fuels be reduced if we turn from combustion engines to fuel cells and electric engines? If the best option is applied to cars as well as buses and trains, how would various proportions of these means of transport differ with regard to needed resource throughput? How could more use of information technology influence these various options? If, based on such calculations, we go for an economically realistic change within the next 20 years, how can the Factor X concept help us to foresee economic and resource restrictions? From a technical and scientific point of view, the Factor X concept is a neutral way of communicating by what factor a certain flow is, can be, or should be reduced. However, the Factor X concept also has some inherent characteristics that make it particularly attractive for communication in science and technical applications, as well as in policymaking: t Comprehensiveness. It communicates, in a direct and concrete way, the relative
reduction of a certain flow. By what factor is this flow reduced? t Creativity. It focuses on solutions rather than problems. By what ways could this
flow be reduced by a Factor X ? t Flexibility. It can be applied for the stimulation, planning and monitoring of any
activity (business or traffic); at any level (technical or societal); at any scale (from resource throughputs in families to countries); and for any purpose (to increase utility per resource throughput, to save money, or to reduce the absolute amounts of resource flows to stay within the carrying capacity of the ecosystems). How much is, or can, or should a certain flow be reduced, and for what purpose?
34
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
The third characteristic, flexibility, holds potentials as well as risks. Provided that everything is defined—purpose, context, system boundaries and types of flow—the flexibility has significant potential. However, since the Factor X concept has gained wide acceptance in policy-making, there are always risks of misunderstandings, or an unwanted development into an inflated and/or diluted meaning of the concept. If the perspective is a state of future sustainability for the whole biosphere, it is obvious that the term Factor X, as such, reflects but one of many important aspects of the transition to reach that state: to dematerialise many of today’s flows that are exceeding the carrying and assimilation capacities of the ecosystems. It is correct that reduction of flows of matter and energy in various technical systems are then of relevance, but the Factor X concept should not get stuck in the ‘technical-fix’ trap, because that was never its intended use. To avoid that, the perspectives must be sufficiently wide, qualitative aspects must be addressed, and dynamic effects taken into account.
A sufficiently large perspective Social aspects Certain aspects of sustainability, such as equity and fairness, are crucial for the Factor X concept to be really helpful in our transition towards sustainability, since we need to apply it on a large enough scale, and in a broad enough context, to be successful. Such aspects can be addressed through the Factor X concept, particularly when it is possible to evaluate the needed reduction of resource flows in certain areas, or to reduce costs to make room for a fairer distribution of resources. That is also in line with the initial development of the concept. Factor X for the industrialised world, for instance, was elaborated as a fair consequence from the suggested reduction of flows by factor 2 on the global scale.
Ecological aspects The Factor X concept is applied for the selection and evaluation of such technologies that hold the highest development potential with respect to resource efficiency. It is important to remember that backcasting builds on the objective of making resource flows compatible with the carrying capacity and assimilation capacity of the whole ecosphere. To that end, the Factor X concept could be elaborated as a benchmarking tool where standards would be set by the absolute reduction of resource flows needed to integrate societal flows with the ecocycles in a sustainable way. This means that the planning, as well as the results from introduction of new and more resource-efficient technologies, should be monitored upstream in cause–effect chains, from a sufficiently large perspective. Has our demand decreased for such metals that increase in concentration in nature? By what factors? Has our demand decreased for such compounds that increase in concentration in nature? By what factors? Has our demand decreased for renewable resources from producers without an ecological management system (EMS)? By what factors?
Qualitative aspects Different flows need to be reduced by different factors The Factor X concept should not be looked at as an overall and static benchmark for all flows. The factor by which a certain flow needs to be reduced to stay within the assimilation capacity of the ecosystems differs greatly depending on what flows we study. Differences in qualities of flows include differences in persistence, abundance
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
35
karl-henrik robèrt, john holmberg and ernst ulrich von weizsäcker
and ecotoxicity of metals and compounds, and in the ways by which various materials are used and managed in society. For the Factor X concept, this makes it imperative to study and monitor various flows individually, and at different levels in society.
Lack of quantitative aspect Certain aspects of sustainability are not quantitative at all. Many flows, for instance, should not be reduced by any factor, but phased out completely within as short a timeframe as possible. The total societal stock of, for instance, heavy metals such as cadmium and plutonium, and persistent unnatural compounds such as PCBs and CFCs, are so profound that a decrease of further production by various factors is of limited significance from a sustainability perspective. Complete phase-out of production, and incineration of compounds and final deposits of certain heavy elements, seem to be of higher value. Other qualitative examples are the need to introduce more gentle management routines in forestry, agriculture or fisheries.
Uncertainty of data Often, we simply do not know by how much we should reduce a certain flow to avoid accumulation; sometimes because we do not know how large the flow is, sometimes because we do not know the assimilation capacity. From a philosophical point of view, the lack of precise data is a problem whether we have an intellectually solid framework for strategic planning or not. And, from a sustainability perspective, more efficient flows in any process is always better than less efficient flows.
Dynamic aspects To make substitutions affordable Certain flows should not be reduced, but phased out completely through the use of substitutions. The Factor X concept may then seem of no importance. However, substitutions are often expensive, particularly when the new flows are low in the beginning of the development. The Factor X concept can then be helpful in reducing the flows and thereby making the substitutions affordable.
Various flows influence each other When flows are changed, it is important to look at the consequences for other flows in a dynamic way, and to always consider sustainability regarding all flows as the target. In order to reduce certain flows—for instance, fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere— other flows may need to be increased: for instance, new and lighter construction materials, or certain metals in photovoltaic cells. If the characteristics of the secondary flows are favourable with regard to the environment (the first three system conditions), this is not a problem; otherwise, it may very well be. If so, it is possible that the investment can be used as a flexible platform for coming investments, by which the unwanted flows can be abolished. If the framework of the goal is made clear, backcasting makes it possible to handle such trade-offs in a more conscious and systematic way, and the Factor X concept can be helpful for the evaluation of various options.
Rebound effects A certain flow within a system, may increase as a rebound effect to reduced flows within a subsystem. For instance, if prices drop from higher resource efficiency in certain technical items, it may lead to a wider use of that technology in society, or if the higher efficiency is not utilised to reduce flows, but for other purposes. For instance, when more efficient car engines are used by more people to drive faster and longer, it may
36
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
factor x for subtle policy-making
lead to the consumption of more—not less—fuel. However, provided that such dynamic effects are taken into account in a subtle way, they are not necessarily counterproductive to the transition towards sustainability. First, from a backcasting perspective, it is hard to imagine an attractive sustainable future without resource-efficient technologies. Therefore, these must be allowed to develop even if there are certain side-effects that need attention during the transition. Second, the rebound effect in itself may sometimes be favourable to the environment if the perspective is sufficiently large: for instance, concerning equity and distribution to poor people. An example would be the development of much more resource-efficient freezers and refrigerators, leading to a wider use in poor countries, and thereby a drop in certain (resource-consuming) epidemics.
References Ayres, R.U., and L.W. Ayres (1994) ‘Consumptive Uses and Losses of Toxic Heavy Metals in the United States 1880–1980’, in R.U. Ayres and U.E. Simonis (eds.), Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development (Tokyo: United Nations University Press). Azar, C., J. Holmberg and K. Lindgren (1996) ‘Socio-ecological Indicators for Sustainability’, Ecological Economics 18.2: 89-112. Bergbäck, B. (1992) ‘Industrial Metabolism The Emerging Landscape of Heavy Metal Immission in Sweden’ (PhD thesis; Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University). de Bruyn, S.M., and J.B. Opschoor (1997) ‘Developments in the Throughput–Income Relationship: Theoretical and Empirical Observations’, Ecological Economics 20: 255-68. Dreborg, K.H. (1996) ‘Essence of Backcasting’, Futures 28: 813-28. Factor 10 Club (1995) Carnoules Declaration (Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute). Holmberg, J., and K.-H. Robèrt (2000) ‘Backcasting : A Framework for Strategic Planning’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 7/2000: 291-308. Holmberg, J., K.-H. Robèrt and K.-E. Eriksson (1996) ‘Socio-ecological Principles for Sustainability’, in R. Costanza, S. Olman and J. Martinez-Alier (eds.), Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics (Washington, DC: International Society of Ecological Economics/Island Press). IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Jansen, L., and P. Vergragt (1992) Sustainable Development: A Challenge to Technology (Leidschendam, Netherlands: Ministry for Housing, Physical Planning, and Environment). Reijnders, L. (1998) ‘The Factor X Debate: Setting Targets for Eco-efficiency’, Journal of Industrial Ecology 2: 13-22. Robèrt, K.-H., H. Daly, P. Hawken and J.A. Holmberg (1997) ‘A Compass for Sustainable Development’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4/1997: 79-92. Schipper, L., and F. Johnson (1993) Energy Use in Sweden: An International Perspective (Berkeley, CA: International Energy Studies Group, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory). Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1994) ‘Revolution in Resource Productivity for a Sustainable Economy: A New Research Agenda’, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 2: 245-490. Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1997) MIPS and Factor 10 for a Sustainable and Profitable Economy (Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute). Von Weizsäcker, E.U., A.B. Lovins and L.H. Lovins (1995) Factor Vier: Doppelter Wohlstand—halbierter Naturverbrauch (Munich: Droemer Knaur). Von Weizsäcker, E.U., A.B. Lovins and L.H. Lovins (1997) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (London: Earthscan Publications). Williams, R.H. (1996) Fuel Decarbonization for Fuel Cell Applications and Sequestration of the Separated CO2 (CEES Report 295; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
q
GMI 31 Autumn 2000
© 2000 Greeenleaf Publishing Ltd
37
