Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A sustainable footprint

By Barney Foran - posted Wednesday, 29 November 2006


Australia’s embrace of the real sustainability debate is something akin to the one-day cricket season. There are two teams, one for and one against, a rowdy crowd, many notable experts and some blokes out in the middle dressed in black pants who run the show.

We all have a good day, the scoreboard gives a mob of meaningless statistics, and then we go back to our normal lives.

We read about it in the paper next morning but nothing really changes. Next week there will be a different team, probably wearing green. Perhaps this time we’ll win.

Advertisement

Sustainability is a bit tougher than one-day cricket. Many worthies strut the stage telling us that sustainability is a journey, we just don’t know enough, we’d better be cautious or action might harm growth or interfere with business confidence.

In science, we now know enough to have good ideas on what sustainability is all about. We talk about long-run physical sustainability, for without clean air, good water and healthy agricultural soils, all the dollars in the world and the widgets they buy, count for little.

To harden the debate, to make the great game more of a contest than the normal walkover for the home team, we propose six principles of physical sustainability. Not quite 10 commandments, and not yet chiselled into stone tablets, but they form a working hypothesis of what we’ll have to do, once we’ve finished talking about it.

The six principles are: stabilising human population number and age structure; reducing the use of the grand global elements; basing economy and society on flows rather than stocks; shortening the supply chain; engineering society for durability and resilience; and developing a new economics where taxes tell the truth.

Like a good cricket team, these principles work together. Each has its place. Stabilising long-run population, just by itself, without working on the others in concert, would be like having the Baggy Greens composed entirely of Steve Waughs perhaps all talking simultaneously.

Stabilising human population numbers in Australia is relatively simple. We’ll hit somewhere between 25 and 27 million by 2050 if we continue with our present policies. We can keep in place all the population policies that have given us the Australia we have today.

Advertisement

The best population structure is to have even numbers of people in each 10-year age cohort. This stops us booming and busting at the edge and in the middle of cities. It means we concentrate on quality of life rather than rolling housing booms.

The grand global elements are carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur. Throw water (H2O) in there as well, though it is a global molecule rather than an element.

Since the start of the industrial revolution, human society and its financial flows have been driven by the increasing capture and release of these elements. On a global scale, the big-numbers people are increasingly perturbed by their increasing use that is well outside the globe’s long-term equilibrium position.

We know about carbon as carbon dioxide, the driver of possible long-term climate change.

Nitrogen is the sleeper: he’s carrying the drinks. It is the fertiliser that keeps our world cropping systems going. Without it we could feed only three billion people. Its over-use acidifies soils and pollutes water bodies, but we keep using more and more of it.

For sustainability we have to reduce use of this bunch of global elements to about half, or some say even a quarter for elements like carbon.

Basing economy and society on flows rather than stocks is about living off the interest rather than continually eating into the capital base. Australia is a great consumer of capital, both renewable and non-renewable. The move to wind farms for electricity is a welcome start, but it is just that, a small start in a mammoth reconstruction and refurbishment of the nation’s metabolism.

Shortening the supply chain is about three things.

The first is the recycling of water, nitrogen and phosphorus out of the cities’ effluent back to their food production heartlands. The second is physically connecting both the body and the mind of urban Australia to the sweat and toil of food production, and helping us see more plainly that you are what you eat. If you have crook soils then you will have crook human health. The third is about reducing reliance on extended supply chains that might get broken if world oil supply becomes constrained.

Engineering society for durability and resilience is about pulling back from the edge of the high-revving motor, that is today’s society and economy. Durable infrastructure and widgets are things that last a long time and can be repaired.

It is also about industrial ecology, where we join all of our industrial processes so that one man’s waste is another man’s feedstock, and overall we get little or no waste.

Society resilience is somewhat similar. Communities living well within their capability rather than continually being on the edge, worrying about interest rates, the school and the hospital. It’s all about a lower-revving design for the economy, and the society that depends on it.

It’s about playing cricket in the backyard, maybe training the next Ricky Ponting, instead of buying our children a new computer game.

Finally the X factor, the team magic, that brings all those together, the requirement for a new economics where taxes tell the truth. When science uses life-cycle analysis to look at the physical content of our personal consumption budgets, we find that the more money we spend, then the more energy, water, greenhouse gas and land disturbance is included, or embodied, in the consumption dollar.

It’s what we scientists call a linear or straight-line function, the more we spend, the more we use over the full production chain or life cycle.

So our personal consumption drives both our economic growth and our resource consumption.

This leads to a compounding effect: if we grow our economy at say 3 per cent a year, we will nearly double resource use and pollution every 25 years, all other things being equal.

This new economics will need to use the best of economic theory and practice to work out equitable ways of taxing energy, greenhouse, water and land, and so force the rate of innovation in resource-saving. It is possible that this new economy could substantially replace personal income taxation and payroll taxes with physical taxes. And pigs might fly you’ll be saying. Well, to get a truly sustainable economy in the long run, they might just have to.

These six principles of physical sustainability should be in every chief executive’s checklist for each development proposal.

The consumption habits hidden deep in our neat suburbs are as far away from sustainability as the chance of the Socceroos winning the next World Cup. But the Socceroos are currently on the field, playing friendlies and working on it.

When will we become strong and toned for the great sustainability race? Well at least we are talking about it. Perhaps next year will bring some surprises.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

First published in The Canberra Times on December 18, 2004.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Barney Foran is currently a visiting fellow at the Centre for Research and Environmental Studies (CRES) at the Australian National University in Canberra. Until September 2005 he was a senior analyst and formerly the leader of the CSIRO Resource Futures group in Canberra. His most recent whole economy work is the study Balancing Act: A Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy, released in May 2005 in collaboration with the University of Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Barney Foran

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Barney Foran
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy