musings

This blog post gives me an opportunity to reflect not just on the contents of IIED’s book Virtuous Circles: Values, Systems and Sustainability but also on the principles of sustainability and my own research on sustainable consumption.

Virtuous Circles is an output of the IIED coordinated Designing Resilience project that provides information and advice to decision makers on how to create an alternative and sustainable future. The project is being trialed as small-scale initiatives in communities within the Latin American and Caribbean region. A key message of Virtuous Circles is that current industrial and economic cycles are linear and it is this linearity that is the crux of our ecological unsustainability. The alternative, therefore, is circular systems. Although “circular metabolism” and “closing the loop” are not new phrases, it is worth pausing here for a few moments to reflect on this crucial concept. All dominant systems - from energy to food to manufacturing – require large amounts of external inputs that are dependent on fossil fuels, continuous extraction of virgin materials and/ or the unsustainable harvesting of renewable resources. On the other end, vast amounts of waste are produced in the form of air pollution, greenhouse gases, toxic water pollution, and land fill waste. Virtuous Circles argues the alternative to such a linear system is to minimise external inputs by integrating various systems (from energy to food to water to housing etc) so that one system’s waste is another system’s input.  Such an approach basically mimics nature – nature is made of many cycles and, left untouched, nothing is wasted. Biodiversity is key to the absence of waste. In any ecosystem all biological waste can only be used back into the system if the system is diverse enough as different organisms have differing food requirements. Biodiversity is nature’s way of converting waste into resources. Biodiversity creates a powerful argument why monocultures, prevalent in our civilization, are inherently unsustainable.

Virtuous Circles focuses mainly on food and agriculture systems but demonstrates how a sustainable system of food provision is actually integrated into effective water, energy, waste management and building systems. Virtuous Circles also argues small scale and fair trade initiatives are key because such types of institutional arrangements can develop and foster the kind of knowledge that is required to practice and promote ecological sustainability. Such institutional arrangements also allow for the majority to have access to secure and fulfilling livelihoods. Countless inspiring case studies are documented within the book. The book also makes several recommendations. The two that stand out to me are: the emphasis on designing and implementing a major eco-literacy programme to raise awareness of the hidden environmental and social problems caused by our current linear systems; and the need to create training centers and institutions to develop the new skills and knowledge base required to implement circular systems. Virtuous Circles also makes the point that circular systems allow for growth in a balanced way and so challenges the widely held assumption that no growth is the only sustainable alternative to the current unsustainable linear growth model – a point that underlies the argument in my research: quality and type of growth is key, not growth per se. It is possible to have positive and enriching growth in circular systems.

Virtuous Circles is an output of research in developing countries but the ideas and learnings are equally pertinent in affluent countries like the UK as principles of sustainability are planetary. My interest is both in the developing world – I am Indian – and in the developed world – I am a long time Londoner. My current research involves investigating what citizen led projects in urban communities in London and other UK cities are doing to reorient unsustainable systems  - energy, food and waste – towards sustainability so that all people everywhere can live and consume more sustainably. I have long been troubled by the conundrum of consumption: consumption is not intrinsically good or bad and some forms are even necessary for living a creative, educated, healthy and fulfilling life. But most forms of consumption currently run on oil. Furthermore, consumption patterns in western economies are still dependent on the unsustainable and unjust extraction of resources from poorer regions of the world. And so I felt the movement to live and consume more sustainably really needs to start in the affluent world. This provided me with the motivation for my research.

Virtuous Circles resonates with me because my research also focuses on small-scale grassroots projects. Although my research is not yet complete, I agree with the point made in Virtuous Circles that grassroots projects have an immense amount of knowledge that is invaluable to understanding how we can transition to a more sustainable world. Unfortunately, this knowledge is often ignored by policy makers, despite the lip service given to “communities”. This is true whether the community is in the developed or developing world. Another reason Virtuous Circles resonates me is the emphasis on integrated systems – when I started my research I didn’t want to be sectoral specific and choose either energy or food or waste systems, primarily because in nature these systems are not separated into sectors! All are integrated and IIED’s findings show that effective integration is key to sustainability.

On a final note, I was heartened to see German chemist Justus von Liebig’s attempt to persuade the London authorities to build a sewage recycling system for the city in the 1840s mentioned in the book. This missed opportunity is something I often think about – London would have been a pioneer sustainable megalopolis if a sewage system that used our sewage as nutrients for farms was implemented instead of the current approach of dumping the sewage into the river. Liebig’s solution would have integrated the system of food provision with the system of waste management. Liebig’s solution may have also avoided the need for artificial fertilisers (which is dependent on potash extraction and fossil fuels, and contributes to soil degradation and declining yields) to the scale it is used today and possibly would have also negated the need for supra infrastructures such as the proposed controversial 24 mile long London’s super sewer. This summer when The Regent’s Canal in East London was covered by toxic algae bloom, a by-product of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in our washing up liquids and detergents that find their way into the waste water stream, I thought again of Liebig and London’s missed opportunity. And so, Virtuous Circles reminds me that at the heart of sustainability is a very simple idea: zero waste

Download Virtuous Circles - http://pubs.iied.org/G03177.html

My mum, a benevolent economist, doesn’t get why biodiversity is important to humanity. She thinks its about being kind to the fish. The problem is I have never been able to convincingly explain the importance of biodiversity to her. She won’t buy the argument that nature is beautiful, awe inspiring and a source of joy. My mum is Indian and has seen a lot of poverty. There is no point of having a joyful landscape if a person can’t feed and educate themselves. Her point is valid and highlights the commonly perceived contradiction between sustainability and economic prosperity. Or does it?

I always thought that if I was able to explain to my mum why biodiversity matters, maybe I will begin to understand how the conflict between sustainability and economic prosperity can be overcome. In my view, cradle to cradle (C2C) philosophy offers just that possibility, that shift in paradigm that is so badly needed.

I won’t go into C2C philosophy here because although it is simple (all waste = food) there are many points of nuances. I would instead like to highlight what C2C says on biodiversity. In an ecosystem, all biological waste can only be used as food back into the system if the system is diverse enough -different organisms have differing food requirements. These diverse interdependent links between various wastes / foods and the ecosystem is only possible if the ecosystem is biodiverse in the first place. So, biodiversity is important to allow waste or useless materials (from a human’s perspective) to be converted back into food or useful materials (from a human’s perspective). Biodiversity is nature’s way of converting waste into resources. Beautiful.

 McDonough and Braungart (2002), founders of C2C philosophy, compare biodiversity to a tapestry – “(…) a richly textured web of individual species woven together with interlocking tasks. In such a setting, diversity means strength, and monoculture means weakness. Remove the threads, one by one, and an ecosystem becomes less stable, less able to withstand natural catastrophe and disease, less able to stay healthy and to evolve over time. The more diversity there is, the more productive functions – for the ecosystem, for the planet – are performed” (p121-122).

Short analysis of Chris Goodall’s paper “Peak Stuff” published on http://www.carboncommentary.com/ - reported in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/31/consumption-of-goods-falling

As it currently stands, all Goodall’s analysis tells us is this: we might be making the right kind of progress in some areas. For example: local governments are becoming better at managing and recycling household waste; individuals are trading in their cars for bikes; companies are using less packaging; some sectors are beginning to establish effective recycling methods; the agricultural sector is using less chemical fertilisers; and perhaps some of our homes are more energy efficient than before. It is imperative we understand the reasons behind these trends so we can build on the successes and tackle our weaknesses. However, the argument that “peak stuff” may have occurred and therefore indicates UK economic growth is not increasing pressures on the environment is premature without further analysis.

It is also very important to remember primary resource extraction is only one dimension of environmental pressure caused by the economy. Other environmental pressures include: GHG emissions, landfill waste, air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, deforestation. These pressures are caused by the technological methods used to produce, transport, recycle and dispose of virgin and recycled materials, consumed by the economy. With the exception of landfill waste, Goodall has examined none of these pressures in detail in his paper.

There are many red herrings and unanswered questions in Goodall’s analysis. Could it be consumption has increased in some areas decreasing consumption in other areas? For example, Goodall couldn’t find reliable data for plastics, a significant part of our overall consumption and a significant source of environmental pressure. Goodall’s analysis of water pollution doesn’t include embodied water in consumed goods and services (water is also omitted from the MFA). Considering China, the world’s manufacturing hub, is experiencing severe water pollution, Goodall’s analysis on consumption of fresh water in the UK tells us nothing about the impact UK’s economic growth has on global water degradation. Goodall acknowledges this but I fear this is buried behind the grand proclamations made in the paper. Goodall’s analysis of peak cement consumption may also be premature – it is well known the UK is experiencing a severe shortage of appropriate housing and that demand has consistently outstripped supply for the last 30 years. Is peak cement consumption due to housing poverty rather than housing prosperity?

Peak stuff? I am not so sure.

The Guardian: “One example of the kind of problem the planet will face has been this year’s devastating famine in the Horn of Africa. Drought was the primary cause, but it has been exacerbated by pressure on the land; the population of the region has doubled since the early 1970s.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/23/child-6bn-population-adnan-nevic  

Hmmm…. population isn’t the only or even the key issue why there is famine in the Horn of Africa. Modern industrial methods of farming have undermined the region’s ability to adapt to the cycle of drought. Read this blog from people who actually work in the area…. http://www.iied.org/blogs/food-aid-needed-desperately-%E2%80%94-ultimately-its-not-answer  (Interestingly this blog was first published in the Guardian….!)

I don’t deny population is a major issue for our world today but all this talk on population obscures the real problem: consumption. What and how we consume has significant implications for major economic questions such as: How can we be energy secure, how can we feed the whole world, how can we minimise waste, etc? Solving these questions according to the cycles and laws of the biosphere will go a long way in helping us deal with the population issue.

(See the TED video on Cradle to Cradle I posted earlier on some clues on what sustainable ways of consuming might look like)

The argument for nuclear power tends to be two fold:

1) Climate change argument - If we want to stop runaway climate change, we need to switch to low carbon fuels FAST and nuclear, a “bridge” technology, is economically and technically more viable than renewables (that remains debatable).

2) Energy security argument - Renewables alone cannot meet all our energy needs.

And this is why I think once-been environmentalists such as Mark Lynas and George Monbiot have turned to the dark side.

But consider this:

Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are waste products from burning fossil fuels. In relatively small amounts CO2 and GHG aren’t that harmful but in large concentrations the planet is unable to successfully assimilate these into the biosphere. This creates a potentially catastrophic problem for climatic regulation. If our generation is finding it nearly impossible to deal with a relatively benign waste product like CO2 and other GHG what the hell are future generations supposed to do when the amount of nuclear waste becomes an unmanageable problem? It is precisely this kind of short term thinking that landed us in our current soup in the first place - is nuclear waste truly the legacy we want to leave behind? Besides land is a valuable and finite resource - is digging holes and burning toxic waste really the best use for land?

And who says energy demand is fixed? The UK has one of the worst building stock in Europe in terms of energy efficiency. We have many technical options to increase efficiency in buildings. If we applied this building by building, street by street, might it not result in less energy demand and more comfortable indoor climate? High building energy efficiency will open up possibilities for biomass district heating systems (all that wood waste that currently goes to landfills may come to good use). If every south facing building was lined with solar panels, would buildings and communities begin to become energy self reliant? Small scale renewable energy generation also cuts down on efficiency loss that occurs due to long distance transport. The possibilities are many. The issue remains finance. Big banks are used to investing in large scale capital infrastructure projects and financial models have evolved to enable this.

We can choose the easy option and build nuclear power plants or we can channel our creativity into creating financial models that will allow small scale, community owned renewable energy to flourish. In the end, our energy path is a political choice not a technical certainty.

Large scale infrastructure projects are not the only viable intervention to solve some of our key environmental problems. In fact many in the energy sector have started to realise that the community scale is where real innovation is taking place ….Read Small is Possible to be inspired by real life projects by a traveling salesmen turned environmentalist entrepreneur

http://www.newsociety.com/Books/S/Small-is-Possible