Lesson 1: Principles of Sustainable Systems

Lesson 1: Principles of Sustainable Systems mjg8

1.0 Lesson 1 Overview

1.0 Lesson 1 Overview jls164

This first lesson of the course reviews some important definitions related to sustainability and sustainable development. We start with very general concepts and then narrow it down to specific principles and how they apply to technologies. Understanding the role of technology in sustainable society is central to this course. As we go from one topic to another, we will always return to the practical question: Is this particular method, product, or design good for our future or should we better look for alternatives? This lesson sets the context. We get introduced to the principles of sustainable design and sustainable engineering and see how they can direct our thinking, innovation, and eventually lifestyle. This lesson also includes introduction to the systems analysis, which becomes an effective tool in understanding interactions between environmental, economic, and social factors in sustainable development.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

  • understand definitions and principles of sustainable development;
  • understand how these principles apply to design and engineering;
  • recall the basics of the systems analysis and apply this approach to a simple system as an example;
  • identify the role of technology in sustainability framework.

Readings

You will be asked to read the following items throughout your lesson. Look for these readings in the required reading boxes throughout the lesson pages.

Book chapter (E-Reserves): C.U. Becker, Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research, Ch. 2. Meaning of Sustainability, Springer 2012, pages 9-15.

UN Document: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2, Geneva, Switzerland, March 20, 1987.

Web article: Daly, H., From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy, in The Architectural League NY, 2013.

Web article: Ellis, E., Overpopulation is not the Problem, New York Times, Sept.13, 2013.

Note: The directly linked materials are available on the web. The items that do not contain a direct link can be accessed electronically, via Canvas's "Library Resources" button.

Questions?

If you have any questions while working through this Lesson, please post them to our Message Board forum in Canvas. You can use that space any time to chat about course topics or to ask questions. While you are there, please feel free to post your own responses if you are able to help out a classmate.

1.1 Sustainability Definitions

1.1 Sustainability Definitions sxr133

Sustainability as a Term

The term sustainability has a multidisciplinary use and meaning. In dictionaries, sustainability is typically described by many sources as a capability of a system to endure and maintain itself. Various disciplines may apply this term differently.

In history of humankind, the concept of sustainability was connected to human-dominated ecological systems from the earliest civilizations to the present. A particular society might experience a local growth and developmental success, which may be followed by crises that were either resolved, resulting in sustainability, or not resolved, leading to decline.

In ecology, the word sustainability characterizes the ability of biological systems to remain healthy, diverse, and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems.

Since the 1980s, sustainability as a term has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth, and this leads us to the concept of sustainable development, which is defined by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations (March 20, 1987) as follows:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The following video will further elaborate on this definition and will give a few examples on its meaning.

Video: What is Sustainability (9:43)

Credit: Christian Weisser "What is Sustainability." YouTube. December 20, 2014.

So what is Sustainability? You've probably heard the term sustainability in some context or another. Maybe you've used some product or service that was labeled as sustainable, or maybe you're aware of some campus or civic organization that focuses on sustainability. You may recognize that sustainability has to do with preserving or maintaining resources. We often associate sustainability with things like recycling, using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, and preserving natural spaces like rainforests and coral reefs. However, unless you have an inherent interest in sustainability, you probably haven't thought much about what the term actually means.

This video provides a basic definition of sustainability. Simply put, sustainability is the capacity to endure or continue. If a product or activity is sustainable, it can be reused, recycled, or repeated in some way because it has not exhausted all of the resources or energy required to create it. Sustainability can be broadly defined as the ability of something to maintain itself.

Biological systems such as wetlands or forests are good examples of sustainability, since they remain diverse and productive over long periods of time. Seen in this way, sustainability has to do with preserving resources and energy over the long term rather than exhausting them quickly to meet short-term needs or goals.

The term sustainability first appeared in forestry studies in Germany in the 1800s, when forest overseers began to manage timber harvesting for continued use as a resource. In 1804, German forestry researcher Georg Hartig described sustainability as "utilizing forests to the greatest possible extent, but still in a way that future generations will have as much benefit as the living generation." So while our current definitions are quite different and much expanded from Hartig's, sustainability still accounts for the need to preserve natural spaces, to use resources wisely, and to maintain them in an equitable manner for all human beings, both now and in the future.

Sustainability seeks new ways of addressing the relationship between societal growth and environmental degradation, which would allow human societies and economies to grow without destroying or over-exploiting the environment or the ecosystems in which those societies exist. The most widely quoted definition of sustainability comes from the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in 1987, which defined sustainability as meeting "the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

As a quick example of sustainability, think about aluminum soda cans. In the past, many soda cans were used and thrown away without a whole lot of thought. The practice of throwing them away was unsustainable, since ready sources of aluminum are limited and landfills and trash dumps were filling quickly with wasted cans. Consequently, governments and private corporations began to recycle aluminum soda cans, and today more than 100,000 soda cans are recycled each minute in the United States. A billion dollar recycling industry has emerged, creating jobs and profits for the workers and businesses employed in that enterprise, while at the same time using limited resources more thoughtfully and reducing the impact on the environment. The process has become cyclical rather than linear, resulting in the continued use of materials.

But sustainability is about more than just the economic benefits of recycling materials and resources. While the economic factors are important, sustainability also accounts for the social and environmental consequences of human activity. This concept is referred to as the "three pillars of sustainability," which asserts that true sustainability depends upon three interlocking factors: environmental preservation, social equity, and economic viability. First, sustainable human activities must protect the earth's environment. Second, people and communities must be treated fairly and equally—particularly in regard to eradicating global poverty and the environmental exploitation of poor countries and communities. And third, sustainability must be economically feasible—human development depends upon the long-term production, use, and management of resources as part of a global economy. Only when all three of these pillars are incorporated can an activity or enterprise be described as sustainable. Some describe this three-part model as: Planet, People and Profit.

Our current definitions of sustainability—particularly in the United States—are deeply influenced by our historical and cultural relationship with nature. Many American thinkers, writers, and philosophers have focused on the value of natural spaces, and those ideas contributed to the environmentalist movement that emerged in the second half of the 20th century. Grassroots environmental organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club advocate for the protection and restoration of nature, and they lobby for changes in public policy and individual behavior to preserve the natural world.

Seen in this way, Environmentalism and sustainability have a lot in common. In fact, some people think that our current conversations about sustainability are the next development or evolution of environmentalism. However, earlier environmental debates often pitted the environment against the economy—nature vs. jobs—and this dichotomy created a rift between those supporting one side of the debate against the other. Many of the current discussions involving sustainability hope to bridge the gap by looking for possibilities that balance a full range of perspectives and interests. Sustainability encourages and provides incentives for change rather than mandating change, and the three pillars of sustainability emphasize this incorporation. Essentially though, sustainability looks for coordinated innovation to create a future that merges environmental, economic, and social interests rather than setting them in opposition.

In some ways, sustainability is the most important conversation taking place in our society today. The earth is our home, and it provides all of the things we need for our survival and nourishment. However, that home has limited resources, and our collective future will depend upon the successful management and use of those resources. We are living in a critical time, where global supply of natural resources and ecosystem services is declining dramatically, while demand for these resources is escalating. From pollution, to resource depletion, to loss of biodiversity, to climate change, a growing human footprint is evident. This is not sustainable. We need to act differently if the world and its human and non-human inhabitants are to thrive in the future. Sustainability is about how we can preserve the earth and ensure the continued survival and nourishment of future generations. You and everyone you know will be affected in some way by the choices our society makes in the future regarding the earth and its resources. In fact, your very life may well depend upon those choices.

With human decision-making involved, sustainability attains a significant ethical aspect and transforms the social paradigm on success, growth, profit, standards of living. This reevaluation requires a broader and more synergistic overview of many components of anthropological ecosystems, including technology.

The topic of sustainable development gained enough importance in the last few decades of the 20th century to become a central discussion point at the 1987 General Assembly of United Nations (UN). Concerned by the quick deterioration of the human environment, uneven development, poverty, population growth, extreme pressure on planet's land, water, forest, and other natural resources, UN issued an urgent call to the World Commission on Environment and Development to formulate a "global agenda for change" [UN, 1987]. The result of this action was the report "Our Common Future," which further served as the global guideline for the world's nations in formulating their political and economic agenda. This document is almost 40 years old now and was followed up by a long array of actions and movements in subsequent years. But let us go back for a little bit and see how it all started.

The original 1987 Report prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development is a big document (over 300 pages), so I do not advise you to read it all right away. The following reading (about 16 pages) is Chapter 2 of the report, which talks specifically about the concept of sustainable development. So, some of the terms, definitions, and perspectives outlined there will be especially useful for our further work and discussions in this course. So, here is your first reading assignment:

Reading Assignment:

UN Document: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development. Geneva, Switzerland, 3/20/1987.

This document summarizes a consensus on sustainable development and outlines the strategies that should enable reaching sustainability goals. Adopted in 1987, it formed the background for many future attempts to formulate the sustainability principles in very diverse areas: science, industry, and economics. Reading through this chapter will provide you with the important background on how the sustainability movement began and what issues were the drivers of sustainable thinking four decades ago.

While reading, take a note of the concept of growth, how it is interpreted, and what positive and negative implications are associated with it. This context will be helpful further in this lesson as we go on to analyze and discuss the question of growth on the forum.

Three Pillars of Sustainability

Sustainable development involves environmental, economic, and social aspects. For a particular process to be sustainable, it should not cause irreversible change to the environment, should be economically viable, and should benefit society. An illustration of the interplay among these three spheres is schematically provided in Figure 1.1. Sustainability is represented as the synergy between society, economics, and environment. The environmental aspects include use of natural resources, pollution prevention, biodiversity, and ecological health. The social aspects include standards of living, availability of education and jobs, and equal opportunities for all members of society. The economic factors are drivers for growth, profit, reducing costs, investments into research and development, etc. There are more factors that will affect sustainability of a social system - these few are listed as examples.

Interaction of social and economic spheres results in the formulation of combined socio-economic aspects. Those are, for instance, business ethics, fair trade, and worker's benefits. At the same time, a combination of economic and environmental interests facilitate increasing energy efficiency, the development of renewable fuels green technologies, and also the creation of special incentives and subsidies for environmentally sound businesses. Intersection of social and environmental spheres lead to creation of conservation and environmental protection policies, establishment of environmental justice, and global stewardship for sustainable use of natural resources. This framework is in some way a simplification, but it proved to be helpful in identifying key areas of impact and set the basis for objective analysis. Further in this course particular processes and technologies will be often evaluated in terms of social, economic, and environmental impacts, although we should understand that those three pillars are never fully isolated from one another.

See text above for more details
Figure 1.1. Interplay of the environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainable development.
Credit: Mark Fedkin. Adopted from the University of Michigan Sustainability Assessment [Rodriguez et al., 2002]

Dimensions of Sustainability

The above-mentioned three pillars of sustainability are very common terms in the literature, media, and communications and convey a simple idea to grasp. However, the interconnections between these three pillars are not at all simple and can actually occur in different planes of thinking. Three fundamental meanings or dimensions of sustainability were defined by Christian Becker in his book "Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research" as continuance, orientation, and relationships. To understand what those dimensions exactly mean, please refer to the following reading. As discussed in this chapter, the multi-dimensional nature of sustainability is something that often results in confusion and miscommunication between different entities and spheres involved. For example, an environmentalist, economist, and politician can discuss sustainability as a project goal but actually have three different goals in mind. So, new project developers in the sustainability era should certainly seek to broaden their perspective and, at the same time, develop sufficient depth in articulation of their sustainability vision. Enjoy the reading:

Reading Assignment:

Book chapter: C.U. Becker, Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research, Chapter 2: Meaning of Sustainability, Springer 2012, pages 9-15. (Available through E-Reserves in Canvas.)

When reading, pay special attention to the various dimensions of sustainability and why they need to be recognized. Think – how would you define the term "sustainability" in your own words?

Check Your Understanding - Reflection Point

Now, as you have read C. Becker's text, think which of the three meanings of sustainability mentioned is the closest to your mindset. When you hear people talking about sustainable economy, or sustainable society, what comes to your mind first? Also reflect on what dimension of sustainability has been lacking from your vision. Do you agree with the author of the chapter that all three dimensions must be equally included in discussion?

Write a few sentences summarizing your thoughts and keep them in your notes. You may need to go back and use your reflection later in the introduction or discussion in your course project.


Note: this is ungraded assignment - you are making this reflection solely for your own reference.

If you completed the short reflection note in the box above - good job! You will find it very beneficial to write down some of your own thoughts while you are still fresh off your reading.

United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)

In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which converged in setting 17 sustainable development goals. These goals link the conceptual understanding of sustainability to specific focus areas, where actions are needed.

These goals became the common framework for governments and organizations developing sustainability plans, assessing new initiatives and emerging technologies, and tracking progress. So, it would be wrong not to include them here:

UN Sustainable Development Goals 
Credit: n.a. “UN Sustainable Development Goals” UN

I do have to note that most of these goals still sound very general and would require specific measures (or metrics) to assess their achievement.

Further in this course, we will occasionally revisit the definitions and interpretations of sustainability. This is one of the concepts that sets context for our main focus in this course - technology role and assessment. In the next section of this lesson, we will start seeing how technology is sometimes considered the cornerstone of the society development and survival. While some theories heavily bet on technology as the universal solution to society's ever-growing needs, others are much more skeptical. So, prepare for some controversy.

Supplemental reading on sustainable development

UN Document: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August – 4 September 2002.

This document provides a more detailed outline of the goals of the global community for sustainable development. You are not required to read the entire document, but it may be interesting to scan through it and see how it follows up on the initial guidelines adopted in 1987.

1.2 Growth / No Growth Dilemma

1.2 Growth / No Growth Dilemma szw5009

Steady State Economy

Enter image and alt text here. No sizes!

Herman E. Daly (1938-2022), a renowned expert in ecological economics, who has been a longtime proponent of the concept of sustainable steady state economy (as opposed to economic growth), formulated several basic rules for a sustainable society, known as Daly Rules:

  1. Renewable resources - e.g., groundwater, biomass - must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
  2. Nonrenewable resources - e.g., minerals, fossil fuels - must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
  3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.

Sustainable steady state theory states that human societies can grow to a special state, where resource supply and consumption are balanced. This should be considered a sustainable steady state. After this balance point has been reached, only refinement of societies (via better use of available resources through more efficient technologies) instead of growth (increase in supply and consumption of resources) should be pursued.

According to Daly’s theory, economic growth cannot be maintained forever because the planet and its resources have finite physical dimensions and capacity:

“If resources could be created out of nothing, and wastes could be annihilated into nothing, then we could have an ever-growing resource throughput by which to fuel the continuous growth of the economy. But the first law of thermodynamics says NO. Or if we could just recycle the same matter and energy through the economy faster and faster we could keep growth going. The circular flow diagram of all economics principles texts unfortunately comes very close to affirming this. But the second law of thermodynamics says NO.” [Daly, 2009]

But is reaching a sustainable steady state in fact realistic and practically achievable? Daly argues that there is a practical alternative to the economic growth paradigm. That would rely on a number of critical economic steps and policies. Daly's measures may seem controversial and somewhat radical at a national or international scale, but they touch an important scaling question: how large can a system be and keep its potential for sustainability?

Reading Assignment

Please click on the following link to review Daly's proposals: "From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy".

Note: This is the first article related to the topic of our first forum discussion.

If you are interested in learning more about Dr. Daly's views on economic growth and a steady state economy, check out his interview below.

Video: "Herman Daly on the Economy and the Environment" (51:06)

 

CAPTION: 
Herman Daly on the Economy & the Environment

Intro

All right so to help us understand the rules of the game that we're talking about so what are the basic fundamentals Global Economic System of our global economic system and who are the principal actors and what are they trying to gain in yeah I think the most basic thing to understand about our global economic system is that it's a subsystem and it's a subsystem of a larger system the larger system is the biosphere and the subsystem is the economy and the subsystem is open that means that it takes in both matter and energy and it gives out both matter and energy back to the larger system the larger system the biosphere is closed that is closed with respect to materials materials circle they recycle but it's open with respect to energy namely solar energy which comes in and then goes out and that powers all the cycle so that's that's the basic fundamental physical features of the system the problem of course is that our subsystem the economy is geared for growth it's all set up to grow to expand whereas the parent system doesn't grow it remains the same size so as we grow into as the economy grows it displaces it encroaches upon the biosphere and this is a fundamental cost this is the fundamental opportunity cost of economic growth that's what you give up when you expand you you give up what used to be there and so we we lose ecosystem services as we expand the size of the economy and if we do that too much growth ends up costing us more than it's worth that is the lost ecosystem services are more valuable than the extra production that caused them to be lost and we haven't yet built that in to our economic thinking we've assumed that we were just so small relative to the total system that it didn't matter but now it does matter and it's true in the past it really did but in in my lifetime the world population has tripled and the population of automobiles and houses and other things that make up the physical economy has grown by at least 12 fold let's say so the world is no longer empty oh the the principal actors the agents in this system of course if we just look at the the biosphere it's the natural world it's other species it's biogeochemical cycles and all of these things that are happening within the the subsystem the economy its of course human beings and what's happening there is that we're we're growing and growth is what we're geared for and mainly I think we've now entered into a sort of phase where growth has become the almost an idle it's the it's the solution to all of our problems we have poverty what are we going to do where we're gonna grow we can't share because that's politically and morally difficult so we'll just make the pie bigger everybody will get more and so we have unemployment so within the human economy we try to solve all of our problems by economic growth we solve unemployment by growth we saw poverty by growth or at least we think we do and we solve even the population problem because people think that if if the economy grows fast and people get richer they'll have fewer children and so forth well these these things are all presumed that economic growth is making us richer and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that most problems are easier to solve if you're richer the difficulty is that beyond some point what we call economic growth increase in GNP will not make us richer that will in fact make us poorer because it will increase costs faster than it increases benefit and to go back and quote John Ruskin who said that well he coined a word which I think we need to reintroduce in Venus English language which is ill-health is the opposite of wealth and we accumulate ill when we generate Bad's faster than we generate Goods Bad's of course things like pollution depletion disruption of system of ecosystem services all of this accumulates is built and this is a cost which heretofore we have not really counted in our measures of growth and so we need to start doing that and not see all the solution to all of our problems in growth I would say yes that this has SteadyState Economy practically become an idol of our age economic growth which is strange when you stop and think about it because and it's not a state of well-being that we're trying to maintain but just a continual increase perpetual growth and that's that's the idea as many have said that's the ideology of the cancer cell it's not a good idea it's not something we can do in a world which is not growing so we what we really need is to shift our economic system from a growth economy to something which has been in economics called a steady-state economy or a stationary economy that idea goes back 150 years it goes back to John Stuart Mill who wrote very eloquently on the subject of the stationary state and it's a stationary state is not static people are born people died new things are invented there's new production in their salsa to balance depreciation so the stock of capital remains constant and the population of people remain constant although quality they're always being renewed by birth and death production equal depreciation but the whole system is not growing it's not expanding further and further into the biosphere and incurring this cost of displacement of the very services that we depend on so the idea has been here for a long time a steady-state economy we just need to develop and get into that idea and work out the institution's required for it yeah externalities what Externalities in a way this is a very big concept it started out as a little footnote kind of concept and exception externalities we're little nuisance items like you know if you your neighbor makes buys a new TV and plays it too loudly and that bothers you well the the cost of bothering you is not built into the price of the TV set that the neighbor had to pay he had to pay for all the wires and the electricity and so forth but but the cost of bothering you was not was not in there so it's a that's class then it's an externality or an external cost or sometimes called a spillover effect well this little category as the economy grows into the biosphere we interfere with each other more and more and the spillover effects become greater and greater and so what gets left out of economic calculation becomes larger and larger relative to what is still internalized or included so this problem I mean it's to the point now where the very capacity of the earth to support life is considered an externality a spillover effect well something's very wrong with the structure of your basic theory if such a vital issue has to be classed as a a spillover and ad hoc externality is high time then to revise the basic concepts so that those most important things will be internal and no longer just little footnote exceptions and I think the way to do that is to move towards the basic idea of a steady-state economy as opposed to a perpetual growth economy so how does so when the entire life support system is considered outside so theory what does that how does that impact the resources use how does that impact how we relate to to or to life support system yes well it's it means that that it's left out and I can give you a little illustration of that when I was with the World Bank they were doing the World Development Report which was on the subject 1992 of environment of development and there was a diagram in the early drafts which said which was to be a picture of the relation of the economy to the environment and it was just as a rectangle and it was labeled economy and there was an arrow coming in from the left labeled input and an Arab exiting from the right labeled output and that was supposed to be the relation of the economy to the ecosystem well we had a big discussion about that and I said well there's no the problem with that diagram is that there's no ecosystem there's only economy and inputs are coming from nowhere and outputs are going nowhere so draw a bigger circle around that little rectangle and say and label that ecosystem or biosphere then it will be clear that the inputs are coming from somewhere you're depleting something in order to get them and that the outputs are exiting to somewhere they don't disappear you're polluting the system bite with the waste and then we can talk about the relation of the economy to the larger ecosystem in terms of depletion in terms of pollution in terms of the regeneration of resources by by recycling the the waste into reusable product we can talk about the entropic nature of this flow through the metabolism etc etc all kinds of interesting things well then the next comes back later on a new draft and there's a box big box drawn around the rectangle no label no change in the text it's just a picture frame as I said the same thing all over again you know this is what we need cetera et cetera the third draft comes through no more diagram completely gave up on the attempt to draw a diagram of the relation of the economy to the ecosystem that really puzzled me at first but then I said well it's clear once you draw that picture it threatens you with questions to which you don't have a good answer it says the larger system of which we're a part is finite and non growing we depend upon it we depend on ways that involve depletion and pollution etc etc how big should the sub system be relative to the total system it's a question we don't want to ask and so that's I think the reason too much depends on growth so when you draw a picture that says growth can't go on then that's threatening what has been Resource Management our old way of managing resources I mean is it through car light cartels the oil cartel or I mean and I know I don't I don't know enough about this to maybe the structure the question of the best but when we're trying to I what I'd like to understand I think what people need to know is how in our olds in this system we have do we regulate resource use is it just grab as fast as you can mm-hmm is it justice grass is the ability for a corporation to marshal resources to go dig stuff out of the ground or is there some form of international cooperation image we say like okay yeah I think the first thing to say about resources I think is that classical economics that has Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill they they focused on fiscal resources it's very important then we went to neoclassical economics in which the idea of value became more subjective utility satisfaction of wants and so forth which is all-important but it shifted the emphasis off of physical resources and ever since it seems to me there's been a tendency in our economic thinking to downplay resources that's they're just stuff it's just stuff that's out there and what's really important is technology and technology manipulates and arranges all of this stuff and so you know they look at the first law of thermodynamics could say we can't destroy matter energy and they say oh well it'll net there's no problem of resource shortage and so we just that that that seems to be what what I have that's completely at variance with the real world where we go to war over resources and and it's extremely important well what what is going on with resources resources are not produced and they're not consumed despite our common usage they are transformed we take from the ground and from the environment resources materials in a structured form which physicists refer to as low entropy organized structured matter fossil fuels concentrated forms of energy we then further give structure to this by means of a production process making commodities which immediately satisfier wants then over time these commodities wear out or destroy and we end up then with high entropy waste materials and energy which is thrown back into the ecosystem so it's like a like an organism or like an animal the economy is like an animal with a digestive tract and the digestive tract has to be attached to the environment at both ends we have to take in and we have to expel and the amount we bring in is equal to the amount we throw out except qualitatively it's very differently they're very different qualitatively the input is low entropy structured materials the output is high entropy so physicists urban Schrodinger years ago said ask the question what is life and he gave the answer of a physicist he says well life is is sucking low entropy from the environment that's what we do to stay alive the same is true for the economy that's the way we produce we suck low entry entropy from the environment we expel high entropy and all of this is in the form of resources that's where we get what makes something a resource is that it has this quality of usefulness expressed and low entropy so we're turning useful stuff into useless stuff and we have to do that we can't produce we can't live without doing that so the question is to do it at a scale and a level at which the larger biosphere can absorb reconstitute and tolerate and that's the limit which we have not yet learned to incorporate into our into our economic thinking Limits stand our limit look what we can do yes the way to understand the limits that this is this is a difficult one because when when you say limit the natural tendency is to think of a brick wall it's something you just crash into and there's no question about where the limit is there's another notion of limit though which is more like a great big elastic band you run into it and it pushes back and you push forward into it and it pushes harder back on you and and I think those are the kinds of limits that are represented by prices by higher prices so we we do run into these limits and we get physical feedback but it's seldom in the form of a brick wall now currently we're getting a lot of feedback from the from the climate which but then this again is not exactly a brick wall although maybe Hurricane Katrina was like a brick wall but we don't really know for sure what all of these costs are so there's a lot of discussion and an uncertainty that's why I like to to think of limits in terms of increasing costs and at some point the cost becomes greater at the margin than the benefit that's the economic limit is when something costs you more than it's worth to do it and I think that's the limit we're running into it's not a brick wall we can we can go on paying a higher cost than things are worth for for quite a while and that's probably dangerous because we can get away with it for longer and longer and that's I think the way most limits are but that doesn't mean to say that there's not also such a thing as a catastrophe limit you know a point at which the system simply breaks that may be the case too Pricing how does the pricing how can we get accurate pricing to reflect well there's I think there are two strategies to get the prices to better reflect the limits one is that prices have to include all external costs if we can internalize all the external costs in the prices by means of taxes that's a big help that helps a whole lot I don't think that's the whole story though I think the other way of doing it is to impose quantitative limits on our activity limit the amount of petroleum extracted and burned per year then let prices race in that amount I think that's a safer way to do it but either either sort of strategy has its advantages and disadvantages but we haven't been willing to do either one so far so I think one way that I would like to see dealt with much more is something we call ecological tax reform that's the idea is we have to tax something we have to finance and pay for public goods we have to support the government so we have to tax something but why tax income income is value-added people don't like to see the value they added taxed away and we want more value added really so it's not a good thing to tax why not tax that to which value is added namely the resource flow which is what is ultimately scarce in any sense so you want its price to go up so we'll be more efficient in using it so if we can shift the tax base away from value-added labour capital on to the resource flows severance taxes tax depletion tax pollution and derive our revenue from that then we'll be will be increasing the the efficiency with which we use resources and at the same time easing up on taxing the the things that we really don't want to discourage one way in which this might be done this ecological tax reform you can do it gradually and step by step we might say let's let's have a carbon tax so that's going to raise the price of gasoline and people will pay more for their gasoline and they will therefore be more careful about trips and they will and about their miles per gallon and so forth which is which is good at the same time we will we will substitute we will get rid of another tax so that the idea is to be revenue neutral not to tax more money from the public in total but to tax them differently so we will tax all expenditures on gasoline but then we will give back roughly the same amount of money by lowering taxes say on income what's our worst income tax our worst income tax let's say probably it's the payroll tax the most regressive okay we will give back in the form of reduced payroll taxes the same amount of money that we collected in form and in say the best resource tax we could manage and we'll do that one year and then the next year we'll take the next best resource tax and the next worse income tax and substitute substitute those out and gradually move towards a different tax base which is much more congruent with a much more it gives much better incentives to people now I even though we're giving back the money to the public we're taxing in a different way and they're still going to be political opposition to any change in the system of tack so there will be opposition from the resource industry the coal industry the petroleum industry to this sort of of change but it seems to me like like it's reasonable and we ought to be able to persuade people like a little bit on this because really no one likes the income tax either and you're in your it's a big political plus to give back some of the value-added than people produce let's talk about steady state Steady State Economics economics and what that is yes a steady state economics our economics of the stationary state so-called them the first expression of that I think was with the classical economists particularly John Stuart Mill 150 years ago nowadays there's been just to show the change in thinking Mill defined the stationary state as a constant stock of capital and a constant population nowadays you read neoclassical economists they will use the term steady state but they'll say steady state growth and what they mean by steady state growth is a constant ratio between the stock of capital and the population so that both are conceived to be growing absolutely but the ratio between them stays the same and that's what they consider a steady state well I I think that's that Mills concept was much was much better and that that's what we need to move toward as the basic alternative to the perpetual growth economy there are many ways I guess in which we could talk about I mean ecological tax reform might be one way of holding steady the the consumption of resources you can get into the very difficult and controversial area of population limitation population control that's another ear side of it Globalization but I think in a way we are undercutting now our possibility to even undertake those actions at a national level this is what bothers me most and when we talk about policies what's happening in the world now is globalization and I make a distinction between globalization and internationalization internationalization means that relations between countries become more and more important we step but the policy unit the unit of community is still the nation even though relations among nations are more and more important and have to be dealt with carefully globalization is so internationalization is a federated community world community is a Federation of national and sub-national communities the other vision which we're moving towards globalization is an integrated view it's not a federation of independent national economies but it is an integrated global economy one single global economy not many interrelated national economies and that's what the WTO is pushing for and that's what the World Bank and the IMF for nowadays pushing through free capital mobility as well as free trade and increasingly easy or uncontrolled migration now when this happens boundaries become irrelevant for economic purposes mobilized economy is the key idea here is that it's integrated and when you integrate something you make it one and I like to say that people actually I say the the global globally integrated economy is like an omelet and you take the national eggs and you crack them and you scramble them into a global integrated omelet everyone celebrates this global integration of the of the omelet but they don't count the cost of disintegrating the national eggs and that disintegration is severe many real costs and destruction of community and livelihood are being paid by ordinary people all over the world in order to foster this vision of this globally integrated omelet now there are some benefits to it for sure but the idea of economics is always count the cost and I think the we've gone way too far in this direction integration to make that a little clearer I think integration is is very much like marriage and internationalism and trading it is like friendship the all nations need to be friends and have good relations but maintaining their separate identity to have to strive for multilateral marriage of all nations where they kind of merge into one and lose their individual identity is probably a very bad idea I don't think we can handle that and that's exactly what happens if our borders become totally porous with respect to the free flow of commodities the free flow of capital and increasing the free flow of people in labor not to say we should be isolated by no means that internationalization recognizes the importance of increased relations among nations but you don't dissolve the integrity of the national unit in order to achieve that which is what we're currently doing now who benefits from this dissolution of the national unit well who is it that's being controlled one of the sets of control is the large corporations the transnational corporations they escape from regulation by national governments they escape into this globalized economy which really has no rules and so they can play off one weak national government against another weak national government they can escape minimum wage laws they can escape environmental laws they can escape workplace safety laws they can minimize taxes and so this whole global economic system which is not so much a system as it is a free-for-all no-man's land without any rules and buy into that they can get away from national regulation and I think it becomes individualism at a global scale rather than community and I emphasize this because community is a concept which does not fit well in neoclassical economics standard economics is very individualistic in the Homo economicus you know the basic unit is a pure individual well people aren't really like that people are members of communities they're persons and community and their very identity is constituted by relationships and community and if this if our community's national and sub-national are more or less written off in this individualistic quest for more and more economic growth at a global level than I think we pay an enormous cost and that's what that undercuts the very capacity of policy at the national level I'm not let me give an example suppose in a globalised war we go to Kyoto and we all make agreements that we're going to cut co2 emissions the National the people who made the agreement go home to their well who's gonna who's going to carry out the policy to to limit those emissions its national governments that are going to do it and if the national governments can't control their borders they can't control where capital goes they can't control what Goods come in and out then any limitations that they put on the actors in their economy to reduce co2 emissions can be evaded the national level becomes impotent than to deal with that problem well okay let's International Trade consider international trade is in spite of the name not trade between nations usually it's trade between private individuals who happen to reside in different national communities and the idea then is should those trades be take place solely for the interests of the individual or should they reflect the interest of the national communities as well let's take another entity the corporation is is a collective entity individual if individuals in one corporation make private deals with individuals in another corporation for their own private personal benefit they'll probably be sent to jail they have to clear these route these agreements with the higher levels of the corporation to make sure that it's in the interest of the total community of the corporation so I think it's similar then with with the nation I'm not the the overall benefit has to be taken into account we have to worry about the effects of employment the effects of on the distribution of income within a country not to put in another way in the United States and Western Europe there's been a kind of social contract between labor and capital and they said in effect we want the distribution of income to be more equal within our country than it is worldwide we don't we don't like that big of an inequality okay so that's the only way you can fulfill that social contract and is within the country where you made it now you suddenly say oh we're going to integrate with the rest of the world economically well then you've totally lost your ability to keep that wage that distribution of income different from what it is in the world as a whole because you said we're going to integrate with the world as a whole if you integrate with the world as a whole you're in the world labor market you're in the world capital market you can no longer have standards which are different and that also leads to a kind of competitive standards lowering competition among firms when when they can escape national regulations in this way what are the obstacles in the way I Obstacles mean how how can we adopt this into our what's the path yeah the obstacles to a steady-state economy I think are are not really so much technical or you know economic and the technical sense I think they're they're almost religious in terms of our commitments and our basic idolatries for example we've already talked a little bit about ecological tax reform that's not all that radical and you know that could be done we're already doing another policy which is very much in the direction of a steady state which is the cap-and-trade systems for individual pollutants you you just limit the total amount and emitted into an air shed and you decide who owns the right to emit and then you would allow trading of emission permits for efficiency and that that works pretty well so I think that that this would not it would not be so difficult to actually move the problem is we is when you've put so much emphasis on growth in the past and you said that the only way to solve poverty is by growing and making people making the total pie bigger and bigger because we don't have the moral resources to to share then that gets that gets really into a to a religious picture and and then there's even underlying that that unwillingness to to share there's a kind of conviction that that nothing is impossible we are creators much more than creatures this is the the hubris of the technical the technological society we live in that fundamentally we are creators we're not really creatures we're we're in control that's that's the idea and science they look at technology and say see we've done this we've gone to the moon we've done this we've done that look at all the things we can do nothing's impossible there's no limit what are you talking about limits people said this was impossible they said we couldn't fly now we fly etc etc etc well ok however it's sobering to think a little bit about that and remember that the reason technology is so successful is that it pays attention to the laws of science and the laws of science are practically all statements of impossibility the laws of science tell you basically what is not possible it is not possible to create or destroy matter energy first law of thermodynamics it is not possible to have perpetual motion second law of thermodynamics it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light it is not possible for non living things to spontaneously generate into living things so all of the technology then precisely by not trying to do what it knows in advance is impossible it tends to be successful yes but that's certainly no reason for saying oh nothing is impossible things aren't possible and the most relevant one right now it's impossible for an economic subsystem to continue growing forever in a finite non growing total system and that doesn't seem to be you know a that's a rather trivial truth but the fact that is trivial doesn't make it less true and it really ought to be taken much more seriously by economists World Bank you know your world back just what's interesting is what happen you believe before you watch the World Bank and what happens yeah yeah I by the time I went to the World Bank I was already this was 1988 I was already very much into environmental issues and I went to the World Bank because I thought the World Bank was really going to take seriously environmental issues and conditioned its growth policies on environmental capacities and recognize costs and build amend and and I knew some people at the bank who I respected very highly and who are doing great work and so I thought it'd be a privilege to work for them and it was and the many of the people in the bank are extremely good and I've made excellent friends there and and liked it a lot but I just discovered over my six years there that there was really that the in the conflict between environment and growth the bank was really ninety-nine point nine percent growth and environment was just window dressing that they were not serious I gave you the story about the diagram but that kind of encapsulated that economic economic growth is sort of the be all and so I I guess what I learned there was that there was a lot of an overwhelming commitment to economic growth which completely undercut the all the talk about environment and me the big idea of course was sustainable development we're going to the bank was going to be committed to sustainable development well okay what did that mean the Brundtland Commission said it means well satisfying the needs of the present without sacrificing the needs of the future okay that's a good beginning but then when we tried to develop criteria for sustainable development they would there would always be resistance and the only way that you could get consensus around the concept was to keep making the concept more and more vague and finally it got so vague as to be meaningless and now the bank says sustainable development oh that's just good development we're all we've always been in favor of that you know yes so it doesn't have any cutting power anymore no teeth to it and and I felt that the the bank was just totally caught up in the in the whole globalization ideology and I so I got out I'm grateful for my time there I learned a lot and certainly there's some excellent individuals working there but the institution itself it seems to me is has dropped the ball and as far as I can tell not likely to pick it up why do you think these are Future of the Environment the bigger questions now why do you think that we can we are running we just will destroying nature in the biosphere because we're not able to really internalize some of these recommendations why do you think we're doing that because we must know that we are and the second part of the question is if we are unable to you know pull the environment inside the system in theory what do you think is gonna happen what's your prognosis for okay well here I think we really do get two fundamental philosophical and religious attitudes if I think if you conceive of the biosphere and the earth as a creation as a system then that supports your life and that's a kind of gift then there's a response of stewardship and care and so forth if you conceive of it as something which simply happened an accident highly improbable cosmic accident over gazillions of years and nothing it reflects nothing in the way of purpose our teleology it's just there then it's rather hard to think of to build up any ground to stand on for saving it or caring or it hard to put it another way this is my biologist friends all of whom I love dearly nevertheless I think they've got some blinders just like economists do and they say they on Monday Wednesdays and Fridays they teach sophomores that all the evolutionary process is purely random there's no such thing as purpose of any kind and what purposes are felt or illusory and so on and so on and then on Tuesdays Thursdays and Saturdays they run down and testify before Congress and get all emotional about this or that little species being driven to extinction well who cares I mean you know if it's all accident anyway and it's all evolving and it's going to change in any case why do I get all upset about you know a little something going to say to extinction so I think their fundamental issues here that we have not really grappled with and and they're not easy but I think the that the the increased secularization of society and the idea that everything is reducible to material physical terms makes it very difficult to undertake any policy based on values and where the value is going to comfort well they're not going to come from accidental random variations that doesn't produce values it's that maybe real and maybe an important part of the way the world works but there's another part of the world that that doesn't explain and that other part of the world which that doesn't explain value insight religious conviction these are things which I think are at the base of the ability of the necessity to to save the environment to care for creation now I will admit there's a whole lot of religious thought that cuts in the other way a lot of religious thought says oh the world's just a temporary platform for human beings to act on and it's gonna be destroyed anyway so you know let it go so it can cut that way too but I think the issue the level at which these things have to be discussed is it is a fundamental religious issue we short-circuited that we said we're not going to deal with all that that's just a bunch of you know vague talk we need to be scientific objective etc etc but if your scientific objective at cetera et cetera you you cut out the ground for ultimately for moral value you've just got matter in motion and that won't get you I think to the to the fundamental issues so that's not an easy answer and as for my prognosis for the future I think it kind of depends on our ability to to reengage that kind of conversation at a deep philosophical level I I tend to be I think one has a duty again a religious duty to be hopeful sin despair is a sin so a religious duty to persevere and be hopeful in this matter but it would be foolish to be optimistic I mean the objective conditions are such that I mean optimism is quite silly and unless we have a kind of religious grounding for hope then I think we're going to just fall into this easy optimism which is shallow and and is going to fall apart that's my thought say I want to do a time capsule question Time Capsule Question we're just doing just a message to future generations it's short or complementing all of these together just what would you like to say that people 100 years from now well I hope you're this still there and if you are I hope that you're creating world community and that you're doing it and at a federated internationalist cooperative way rather than a globalist integrated one-world single system kind of way maybe we'll eventually get to the latter but I don't think in a hundred years you would have made it so I hope you're still here good luck.

Credit: Tree+

Oscillating Steady State

Contrary to the steady-state paradigm, an alternative view expressed in works by Howard T. Odum and collaborators (for example “Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Decision Making” 1995) considers the whole planet a self-organizing system, where storages of resources are continuously depleted and replaced at different rates, and matter recycling and reorganization is driven by solar, geothermal, and gravitational energies. It is hypothesized that one of the possible reasons for oscillating systems to be preferable over steady state systems is that they are governed by the system feedback to changing environmental conditions or depletion of one or other storage. The system should be able to tune its performance according to the changing environment.

As the diagram in Figure 1.2. illustrates, net primary production and storage of resources (expressed as Quantity Q) develop faster than consumer assets (expressed as Quantity C) until the system reaches a threshold where autocatalytic and higher order pathways are accelerated. At the threshold, consumer assets show a sudden increase at the expense of the environmental storage (consumer pulse). As the resources are used up quickly, consumer assets drop, allowing a new cycle of building resource storage to begin. In the case of global economy, the storages can be represented, for example, by oil, minerals, topsoil, and other slowly renewable resources, while the consumer assets are human economies and civilization. The theory presumes that this kind of pulsation can be sustained over time.

Figure 1.2. Described in paragraph above
Figure 1.2. Pulsing growth paradigm.
Credit: Odum, 1988

Anthropogenic Ecology Theory

Some contemporary scientists find Daly's arguments overly pessimistic. For example, Erle Ellis, an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a visiting associate professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, argues that over the course of the anthropogenic history, humans have almost never relied simply on the carrying capacity of natural ecosystems, but rather created specially engineered ecosystems. Such artificial eco-niches utilize intelligent approaches and technologies for extracting more usable resource from the nature. So, essentially, Ellis infers, there is no problem of limiting carrying capacity due to creative transformative powers of humankind.

Within the anthropogenic ecology theory, the emergence of new sociocultural niches in human society is represented as a novel evolutionary process in the Earth system. These niches are the result of re-shaping the biosphere into new organizational level which allows virtually unlimited upscaling of societies through culturally mediated changes.

Please click on the following link to read more about Erle Ellis views in the New York Times article: "Overpopulation is not the Problem"

Note: This is the second article that will be related to the topic of our first forum discussion.

To better understand and to analyze the dynamics of feedback and oscillations within socio-ecological systems, it would be useful for us to look at the basics of the systems thinking approach. This thinking framework is especially important to sustainability science, because it allows tracking logical interconnections between natural factors, economic factors, social motifs. More details are given further in Sections 1.5-1.8 of this lesson.

1.3 Principles of Sustainable Design

1.3 Principles of Sustainable Design szw5009

The next question for us to explore is how the meanings of sustainability extend into technical spheres, specifically engineering, design, and technology development.

The term design is normally referred to the "way of doing things or making things" in various areas of human activity. Design is always driven by a specific objective, such as making the product or system most efficient, or most profitable, or most aesthetically impressive, etc. Such objectives can be drastically polar and to reach them, designing phase may require change of thinking and high level of creativity. So, what is sustainable design?

This concept was largely advocated by William McDonough, an American designer, architect, author, and thought leader, who espouses a message that we can design materials, systems, companies, products, buildings, and communities that can continuously improve over time.

"If design is the first signal of human intention, our intention today can be to love all ten billion people who will live on our planet by 2050. We can do this. If we imagine and embrace our cities as part of the same organism as the countryside, the rivers and the oceans, then we can celebrate ourselves, all species and the natural systems we support and that support us. This is our design assignment. If we are principled and have positive goals, we can rise to this occasion. It will take us all; it will take forever—that is the point." (McDonough, 1992)

The concept of sustainable design is supplied with some lively illustrations in McDonough's TED Talk

Watch this video: William McDonough's TED Talk (19:46)

Cradle to cradle design | William McDonough

In 1962, with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," I think for people like me in the world of the making of things, the canary in the mine wasn't singing. And so the question that we might not have birds became kind of fundamental to those of us wandering around looking for the meadowlarks that seemed to have all disappeared. And the question was, were the birds singing? Now, I'm not a scientist, that'll be really clear. But, you know, we've just come from this discussion of what a bird might be. What is a bird? Well, in my world, this is a rubber duck. It comes in California with a warning -- "This product contains chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." This is a bird. What kind of culture would produce a product of this kind and then label it and sell it to children? I think we have a design problem. Someone heard the six hours of talk that I gave called "The Monticello Dialogues" on NPR, and sent me this as a thank you note -- "We realize that design is a signal of intention, but it also has to occur within a world, and we have to understand that world in order to imbue our designs with inherent intelligence, and so as we look back at the basic state of affairs in which we design, we, in a way, need to go to the primordial condition to understand the operating system and the frame conditions of a planet, and I think the exciting part of that is the good news that's there, because the news is the news of abundance, and not the news of limits, and I think as our culture tortures itself now with tyrannies and concerns over limits and fear, we can add this other dimension of abundance that is coherent, driven by the sun, and start to imagine what that would be like to share." That was a nice thing to get. That was one sentence. Henry James would be proud. This is -- I put it down at the bottom, but that was extemporaneous, obviously. The fundamental issue is that, for me, design is the first signal of human intentions. So what are our intentions, and what would our intentions be -- if we wake up in the morning, we have designs on the world -- well, what would our intention be as a species now that we're the dominant species? And it's not just stewardship and dominion debate, because really, dominion is implicit in stewardship -- because how could you dominate something you had killed? And stewardship's implicit in dominion, because you can't be steward of something if you can't dominate it. So the question is, what is the first question for designers? Now, as guardians -- let's say the state, for example, which reserves the right to kill, the right to be duplicitous and so on -- the question we're asking the guardian at this point is are we meant, how are we meant, to secure local societies, create world peace and save the environment? But I don't know that that's the common debate. Commerce, on the other hand, is relatively quick, essentially creative, highly effective and efficient, and fundamentally honest, because we can't exchange value for very long if we don't trust each other. So we use the tools of commerce primarily for our work, but the question we bring to it is, how do we love all the children of all species for all time? And so we start our designs with that question. Because what we realize today is that modern culture appears to have adopted a strategy of tragedy. If we come here and say, "Well, I didn't intend to cause global warming on the way here," and we say, "That's not part of my plan," then we realize it's part of our de facto plan. Because it's the thing that's happening because we have no other plan. And I was at the White House for President Bush, meeting with every federal department and agency, and I pointed out that they appear to have no plan. If the end game is global warming, they're doing great. If the end game is mercury toxification of our children downwind of coal fire plants as they scuttled the Clean Air Act, then I see that our education programs should be explicitly defined as, "Brain death for all children. No child left behind." (Applause) So, the question is, how many federal officials are ready to move to Ohio and Pennsylvania with their families? So if you don't have an endgame of something delightful, then you're just moving chess pieces around, if you don't know you're taking the king. So perhaps we could develop a strategy of change, which requires humility. And in my business as an architect, it's unfortunate the word "humility" and the word "architect" have not appeared in the same paragraph since "The Fountainhead." So if anybody here has trouble with the concept of design humility, reflect on this -- it took us 5,000 years to put wheels on our luggage. So, as Kevin Kelly pointed out, there is no endgame. There is an infinite game, and we're playing in that infinite game. And so we call it "cradle to cradle," and our goal is very simple. This is what I presented to the White House. Our goal is a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, clean water, soil and power -- economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed, period. (Applause) What don't you like about this? Which part of this don't you like? So we realized we want full diversity, even though it can be difficult to remember what De Gaulle said when asked what it was like to be President of France. He said, "What do you think it's like trying to run a country with 400 kinds of cheese?" But at the same time, we realize that our products are not safe and healthy. So we've designed products and we analyzed chemicals down to the parts per million. This is a baby blanket by Pendleton that will give your child nutrition instead of Alzheimer's later in life. We can ask ourselves, what is justice, and is justice blind, or is justice blindness? And at what point did that uniform turn from white to black? Water has been declared a human right by the United Nations. Air quality is an obvious thing to anyone who breathes. Is there anybody here who doesn't breathe? Clean soil is a critical problem -- the nitrification, the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. A fundamental issue that's not being addressed. We've seen the first form of solar energy that's beat the hegemony of fossil fuels in the form of wind here in the Great Plains, and so that hegemony is leaving. And if we remember Sheikh Yamani when he formed OPEC, they asked him, "When will we see the end of the age of oil?" I don't know if you remember his answer, but it was, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones." We see that companies acting ethically in this world are outperforming those that don't. We see the flows of materials in a rather terrifying prospect. This is a hospital monitor from Los Angeles, sent to China. This woman will expose herself to toxic phosphorous, release four pounds of toxic lead into her childrens' environment, which is from copper. On the other hand, we see great signs of hope. Here's Dr. Venkataswamy in India, who's figured out how to do mass-produced health. He has given eyesight to two million people for free. We see in our material flows that car steels don't become car steel again because of the contaminants of the coatings -- bismuth, antimony, copper and so on. They become building steel. On the other hand, we're working with Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett and Shaw Carpet, the largest carpet company in the world. We've developed a carpet that is continuously recyclable, down to the parts per million. The upper is Nylon 6 that can go back to caprolactam, the bottom, a polyolephine -- infinitely recyclable thermoplastic. Now if I was a bird, the building on my left is a liability. The building on my right, which is our corporate campus for The Gap with an ancient meadow, is an asset -- its nesting grounds. Here's where I come from. I grew up in Hong Kong, with six million people in 40 square miles. During the dry season, we had four hours of water every fourth day. And the relationship to landscape was that of farmers who have been farming the same piece of ground for 40 centuries. You can't farm the same piece of ground for 40 centuries without understanding nutrient flow. My childhood summers were in the Puget Sound of Washington, among the first growth and big growth. My grandfather had been a lumberjack in the Olympics, so I have a lot of tree karma I am working off. I went to Yale for graduate school, studied in a building of this style by Le Corbusier, affectionately known in our business as Brutalism. If we look at the world of architecture, we see with Mies' 1928 tower for Berlin, the question might be, "Well, where's the sun?" And this might have worked in Berlin, but we built it in Houston, and the windows are all closed. And with most products appearing not to have been designed for indoor use, this is actually a vertical gas chamber. When I went to Yale, we had the first energy crisis, and I was designing the first solar-heated house in Ireland as a student, which I then built -- which would give you a sense of my ambition. And Richard Meier, who was one of my teachers, kept coming over to my desk to give me criticism, and he would say, "Bill, you've got to understand- -- solar energy has nothing to do with architecture." I guess he didn't read Vitruvius. In 1984, we did the first so-called "green office" in America for Environmental Defense. We started asking manufacturers what were in their materials. They said, "They're proprietary, they're legal, go away." The only indoor quality work done in this country at that time was sponsored by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and it was to prove there was no danger from secondhand smoke in the workplace. So, all of a sudden, here I am, graduating from high school in 1969, and this happens, and we realize that "away" went away. Remember we used to throw things away, and we'd point to away? And yet, NOAA has now shown us, for example -- you see that little blue thing above Hawaii? That's the Pacific Gyre. It was recently dragged for plankton by scientists, and they found six times as much plastic as plankton. When asked, they said, "It's kind of like a giant toilet that doesn't flush." Perhaps that's away. So we're looking for the design rules of this -- this is the highest biodiversity of trees in the world, Irian Jaya, 259 species of tree, and we described this in the book, "Cradle to Cradle." The book itself is a polymer. It is not a tree. That's the name of the first chapter -- "This Book is Not a Tree." Because in poetics, as Margaret Atwood pointed out, "we write our history on the skin of fish with the blood of bears." And with so much polymer, what we really need is technical nutrition, and to use something as elegant as a tree -- imagine this design assignment: Design something that makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, creates microclimates, changes colors with the seasons and self-replicates. Well, why don't we knock that down and write on it? (Laughter) So, we're looking at the same criteria as most people -- you know, can I afford it? Does it work? Do I like it? We're adding the Jeffersonian agenda, and I come from Charlottesville, where I've had the privilege of living in a house designed by Thomas Jefferson. We're adding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now if we look at the word "competition," I'm sure most of you've used it. You know, most people don't realize it comes from the Latin competere, which means strive together. It means the way Olympic athletes train with each other. They get fit together, and then they compete. The Williams sisters compete -- one wins Wimbledon. So we've been looking at the idea of competition as a way of cooperating in order to get fit together. And the Chinese government has now -- I work with the Chinese government now -- has taken this up. We're also looking at survival of the fittest, not in just competition terms in our modern context of destroy the other or beat them to the ground, but really to fit together and build niches and have growth that is good. Now most environmentalists don't say growth is good, because, in our lexicon, asphalt is two words: assigning blame. But if we look at asphalt as our growth, then we realize that all we're doing is destroying the planetary's fundamental underlying operating system. So when we see E equals mc squared come along, from a poet's perspective, we see energy as physics, chemistry as mass, and all of a sudden, you get this biology. And we have plenty of energy, so we'll solve that problem, but the biology problem's tricky, because as we put through all these toxic materials that we disgorge, we will never be able to recover that. And as Francis Crick pointed out, nine years after discovering DNA with Mr. Watson, that life itself has to have growth as a precondition -- it has to have free energy, sunlight and it needs to be an open system of chemicals. So we're asking for human artifice to become a living thing, and we want growth, we want free energy from sunlight and we want an open metabolism for chemicals. Then, the question becomes not growth or no growth, but what do you want to grow? So instead of just growing destruction, we want to grow the things that we might enjoy, and someday the FDA will allow us to make French cheese. So therefore, we have these two metabolisms, and I worked with a German chemist, Michael Braungart, and we've identified the two fundamental metabolisms. The biological one I'm sure you understand, but also the technical one, where we take materials and put them into closed cycles. We call them biological nutrition and technical nutrition. Technical nutrition will be in an order of magnitude of biological nutrition. Biological nutrition can supply about 500 million humans, which means that if we all wore Birkenstocks and cotton, the world would run out of cork and dry up. So we need materials in closed cycles, but we need to analyze them down to the parts per million for cancer, birth defects, mutagenic effects, disruption of our immune systems, biodegradation, persistence, heavy metal content, knowledge of how we're making them and their production and so on. Our first product was a textile where we analyzed 8,000 chemicals in the textile industry. Using those intellectual filters, we eliminated [7,962.] We were left with 38 chemicals. We have since databased the 4000 most commonly used chemicals in human manufacturing, and we're releasing this database into the public in six weeks. So designers all over the world can analyze their products down to the parts per million for human and ecological health. (Applause) We've developed a protocol so that companies can send these same messages all the way through their supply chains, because when we asked most companies we work with -- about a trillion dollars -- and say, "Where does your stuff come from?" They say, "Suppliers." "And where does it go?" "Customers." So we need some help there. So the biological nutrients, the first fabrics -- the water coming out was clean enough to drink. Technical nutrients -- this is for Shaw Carpet, infinitely reusable carpet. Here's nylon going back to caprolactam back to carpet. Biotechnical nutrients -- the Model U for Ford Motor, a cradle to cradle car -- concept car. Shoes for Nike, where the uppers are polyesters, infinitely recyclable, the bottoms are biodegradable soles. Wear your old shoes in, your new shoes out. There is no finish line. The idea here of the car is that some of the materials go back to the industry forever, some of the materials go back to soil -- it's all solar-powered. Here's a building at Oberlin College we designed that makes more energy than it needs to operate and purifies its own water. Here's a building for The Gap, where the ancient grasses of San Bruno, California, are on the roof. And this is our project for Ford Motor Company. It's the revitalization of the River Rouge in Dearborn. This is obviously a color photograph. These are our tools. These are how we sold it to Ford. We saved Ford 35 million dollars doing it this way, day one, which is the equivalent of the Ford Taurus at a four percent margin of an order for 900 million dollars worth of cars. Here it is. It's the world's largest green roof, 10 and a half acres. This is the roof, saving money, and this is the first species to arrive here. These are killdeer. They showed up in five days. And we now have 350-pound auto workers learning bird songs on the Internet. We're developing now protocols for cities -- that's the home of technical nutrients. The country -- the home of biological. And putting them together. And so I will finish by showing you a new city we're designing for the Chinese government. We're doing 12 cities for China right now, based on cradle to cradle as templates. Our assignment is to develop protocols for the housing for 400 million people in 12 years. We did a mass energy balance -- if they use brick, they will lose all their soil and burn all their coal. They'll have cities with no energy and no food. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding -- here's Madam Deng Nan, Deng Xiaoping's daughter -- for China to adopt cradle to cradle. Because if they toxify themselves, being the lowest-cost producer, send it to the lowest-cost distribution -- Wal-Mart -- and then we send them all our money, what we'll discover is that we have what, effectively, when I was a student, was called mutually assured destruction. Now we do it by molecule. These are our cities. We're building a new city next to this city; look at that landscape. This is the site. We don't normally do green fields, but this one is about to be built, so they brought us in to intercede. This is their plan. It's a rubber stamp grid that they laid right on that landscape. And they brought us in and said, "What would you do?" This is what they would end up with, which is another color photograph. So this is the existing site, so this is what it looks like now, and here's our proposal. (Applause) So the way we approached this is we studied the hydrology very carefully. We studied the biota, the ancient biota, the current farming and the protocols. We studied the winds and the sun to make sure everybody in the city will have fresh air, fresh water and direct sunlight in every single apartment at some point during the day. We then take the parks and lay them out as ecological infrastructure. We lay out the building areas. We start to integrate commercial and mixed use so the people all have centers and places to be. The transportation is all very simple, everybody's within a five-minute walk of mobility. We have a 24-hour street, so that there's always a place that's alive. The waste systems all connect. If you flush a toilet, your feces will go to the sewage treatment plants, which are sold as assets, not liabilities. Because who wants the fertilizer factory that makes natural gas? The waters are all taken in to construct the wetlands for habitat restorations. And then it makes natural gas, which then goes back into the city to power the fuel for the cooking for the city. So this is -- these are fertilizer gas plants. And then the compost is all taken back to the roofs of the city, where we've got farming, because what we've done is lifted up the city, the landscape, into the air to -- to restore the native landscape on the roofs of the buildings. The solar power of all the factory centers and all the industrial zones with their light roofs powers the city. And this is the concept for the top of the city. We've lifted the earth up onto the roofs. The farmers have little bridges to get from one roof to the next. We inhabit the city with work/live space on all the ground floors. And so this is the existing city, and this is the new city. (Applause)

Credit: TED

McDonough crafted sustainable design principles for Expo 2000, The World’s Fair, which became known as "The Hannover Principles: Design for Sustainability." This document has wide philosophical and ethical dimensions and should be seen as a living document committed to the transformation and growth in the understanding of our interdependence with nature and future generations.

 

Book cover of the Hannover Principles
Book cover of the Hannover Principles
Credit: McDonough, 1992

THE HANNOVER PRINCIPLES

  1. "Insist on rights of humanity and nature to coexist in a healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition.
  2. Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale. Expand design considerations to recognizing even distant effects.
  3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human settlement including community, dwelling, industry and trade in terms of existing and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness.
  4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-being, the viability of natural systems and their right to coexist.
  5. Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due to the careless creation of products, processes, or standards.
  6. Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full lifecycle of products and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.
  7. Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently and safely for responsible use.
  8. Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever and design does not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience to be evaded or controlled.
  9. Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers and users to link long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and reestablish the integral relationship between natural processes and human activity."

It is a philosophy that can be applied in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, urban planning, engineering, graphic design, industrial design, interior design, fashion design, human-computer interaction, and many other areas depending on modern technologies.

In the consideration of the above principles, a strong emphasis is put on #6 [waste elimination], since it perhaps has the most profound impact on environment and human health as well as contains possible solutions for smart use and reuse of limited natural resources. A good waste prevention strategy would require that everything brought into a facility or process be recycled for reuse or recycled back into the environment through biodegradation. This would mean a greater reliance on natural materials or products that are compatible with the environment. Any resource-related development is going to have two basic sources of solid waste — materials purchased and used by the facility and those brought into the facility by visitors. The following are some waste prevention strategies that apply to both, although different approaches will be needed for implementation:

  • Low-impact materials: Choose non-toxic, sustainably produced or recycled materials which require little energy to process.
  • Energy efficiency: Use manufacturing processes and produce products which require less energy.
  • Emotionally Durable Design: Reduce consumption and waste of resources by increasing the durability of relationships between people and products, through design.
  • Design for reuse and recycling: "Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial 'afterlife'."
  • Biomimicry: "redesigning industrial systems on biological lines ... enabling the constant reuse of materials in continuous closed cycles..."
  • Service substitution: Shift the mode of consumption from personal ownership of products to provision of services which provide similar functions, e.g., from a private automobile to a carsharing service. Such a system promotes minimal resource use per unit of consumption (e.g., per trip driven).
  • Renewability: Materials should come from nearby (local or bioregional), sustainably managed renewable sources that can be composted when their usefulness has been exhausted.

Here are some of the examples how design approaches attempt to promote the sustainability principles:

Emotionally Durable Design

The 2CV Chronicles Project

 

The 2CV Chronicles Project
Credit: Liz Nehdi / The 2CV Chronicles Project

The concept and philosophy of Emotionally Durable Design was pioneered by Jonathan Chapman, Professor of the University of Brighton (UK). According to this philosophy, increasing the resilience of relationships established between consumers and products reduces the consumption and waste of natural resources. Chapman states that "the process of consumption is, and has always been, motivated by complex emotional drivers, and is about far more than just the mindless purchasing (and discarding) of newer and shinier things". For example, these couple of images illustrate personalized design of products, when in addition to their normal function, the objects also help the owner to make a statement or express their style of life. To this end, 'emotional durability' can be achieved through consideration of the following five elements:

ALT
CAPTION_CONTENTS.
  • Narrative: How users share a unique personal history with the product.
  • Consciousness: How the product is perceived as autonomous and in possession of its own free will.
  • Attachment: Can a user be made to feel a strong emotional connection to a product?
  • Fiction: The product inspires interactions and connections beyond just the physical relationship.
  • Surface: How the product ages and develops character through time and use.

As a strategic approach, "emotionally durable design provides a useful language to describe the contemporary relevance of designing responsible, well-made, tactile products which the user can get to know and assign value to in the long-term."

Biomimicry

decorative image of a butterfly
Morpho Butterfly
Credit: CREDIT_CONTENTS

Biomimicry is the imitation of the models, systems, and elements of nature in design, engineering, and science, primarily for finding new solutions to scientific or technological challenges. Biomimicry has given rise to new technologies created from biologically inspired engineering at both the macro scale and nanoscale levels. In fact, humans have been looking at nature for answers to both complex and simple problems throughout world history. Nature has solved many of today's engineering problems, such as hydrophobicity, wind resistance, self-assembly, and harnessing solar energy through the evolutionary mechanics of selective advantages. Here are several examples (out of many) showing the use of biological subjects as models in technology.

Because natural systems are a priori sustainable, designs observed in the nature can be viewed as prototypes of smart technologies for potential anthropogenic sustainability systems.

  1. A. The morpho butterfly (shown in the image above from Wikipedia) gains its color due to the special structural orientation of scale in its wings. Incident light is reflected at specific wavelengths to create vibrant colors due to multilayer interference, diffraction, thin film interference, and scattering properties. Now, some companies (Qualcomm) use this principle in manufacturing colored displays at much lower power consumption (as compared to production of dyes).
decorative image of a termite mound
CAPTION_CONTENTS.
Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org
  1. B. Researchers studied the termite's ability to maintain virtually constant temperature and humidity in their termite mounds in Africa despite outside temperatures that vary from 1.5 °C to 40 °C (35 °F to 104 °F). Researchers initially scanned a termite mound and created 3-D images of the mound structure, which revealed construction that can influence human building design. The Eastgate Centre, a mid-rise office complex in Harare, Zimbabwe (image on the left), stays cool without air conditioning and uses only 10% of the energy of a conventional building of its size (Source: Biomimicry).
  2. C. Holistic planned grazing, using fencing and/or herders, seeks to restore grasslands by carefully planning movements of large herds of livestock to mimic the vast herds found in nature, where grazing animals are kept concentrated by pack predators and must move on after eating, trampling, and manuring an area, returning only after it has fully recovered. Developed by Allan Savory, this method of biomimetic grazing holds tremendous potential in building soil, increasing biodiversity, reversing desertification, and mitigating global warming, similar to what occurred during the past 40 million years as the expansion of grass-grazer ecosystems built deep grassland soils, sequestering carbon and cooling the planet (Source: Biomimicry).
  3. Paper wasps' nests are made out of cellulose (or chewed-up wood) and wasp saliva. The wasp uses saliva that has a lot of protein in it, and that protein mixed with the cellulose creates a water-insoluble but also waterproof covering. It is interesting that in rainy environments, wasps are found to use more protein in their saliva in order to make the nest more waterproof. And because protein is quite expensive from a wasp’s standpoint because they have to go get more insects to get more protein, they are only going to use it if they really need it. So, if this is in a dry environment or protected from overhead, they are not using as much protein. This idea can be borrowed to make non-toxic, waterproof paper, or other biodegradable materials (Source: Biomimicry Case Examples)

Supplemental reading on sustainable design:

Book: McDonough and Braungart, M., Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press, NY 2002.

An engaging book on the philosophy of sustainable design with numerous examples and stories. Authors explain how products can be designed in such a way that after their service life, they become not waste, but nourishment for something new..

Journal article: Chapman, J., Design for (Emotional) Durability, Design Issues, v.25, Issue 4, 29, 2009.

This paper elaborates on the concept of emotionally durable design and overviews avenues for change.

Web article: Cohen, S., Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability, Columbia Climate School, Jan 27, 2020,

This article discusses how sustaible design may help marry the economic growth with the environmental protection and lead to better quality of life in both developed and developing world. 

1.4 Principles of Sustainable Engineering

1.4 Principles of Sustainable Engineering szw5009

"Engineering in context, engineering with a conscience, engineering for a finite planet and the indefinite future"

-Benoit Cushman-Roisin

Sustainable engineering should be based on principles that support sustainable development, as defined in the upper sections of this lesson. Engineering forms an interface between the design (i.e., the idea how to provide a sustainable solution to a technical problem) and implementation and production. In case of technology development, engineering phase is linked to almost every level of technology readiness spectrum. Sustainable engineering principles should be contemplated and applied early to ensure that technology development and scale-up follow the environmentally benign route. It will be hard to turn back to redo and redesign things from later stages! In that sense, the sustainable engineering principles should be taken into account in decision making for both research and industrial projects, as well as in policy making and decisions regarding funding of technological research.

There have been multiple attempts by academic and industrial institutions to formulate sustainable engineering principles. All of them fall within the triangle with Environmental, Social, and Economic values as cornerstones. The overarching goal is to generate a balanced solution to any engineering problem. If an engineering project benefits one of these three aspects but ignores the others, we have a lopsided system which creates tension, instability, and new problems in the long run.

Here are some of the aspects that differentiate the traditional and sustainable approaches in engineering:

Sustainability Approaches in Engineering
Traditional EngineeringSustainable Engineering
Considers the object or processConsiders the whole system in which the object or process will be used
Focuses on technical issuesConsiders both technical and non-technical issues synergistically
Solves the immediate problemStrives to solve the problem for infinite future (forever?)
Considers the local contextConsiders the global context
Assumes others will deal with political, ethical, and societal issuesAcknowledges the need to interact the experts in other disciplines related to the problem

The diagram in Figure 1.3. presents a consolidated framework for sustainable engineering principles, which are in part adopted from the work of Gagnon and co-authors "Sustainable development in engineering: a review of principles and definition of a conceptual framework" (2008) and from the green engineering principles established by Sundestin Conference (2003).

See long description below
Figure 1.3. Classification of sustainable engineering principles versus environmental, social, and economic criteria.

Figure 1.3 text description

Various principles of sustainable engineering are placed on the perimeter of the triangle. On the triangle's bottom edge are the Society pole (left) and the Economy pole (right). From left to right, the four principles shown are as follows:

  • Offer individuals and communities the opportunity to increase their capabilities.
  • Know your "needs" and "wants." Put primary focus on achieving needs of larger number of individuals.
  • Allocate in a fair manner benefits and costs related to economic activity and public policies.
  • Maintain a positive genuine long term investment considering all types of capital.

On the triangle's left edge are the Society pole (bottom) and the Environment pole (top). From bottom to top, the four principles shown are as follows:

  • Ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently safe and benign as possible.
  • Look beyond your own locality and the immediate future.
  • Preserve access to exosystems services essential to health and wellbeing.
  • Preserve biodiversity and respect all life forms, regardless of how useful they are to humankind.

On the triangle's right edge are the Environment pole (top) and the Economy pole (bottom). From top to bottom, the four principles shown are as follows:

  • Stay within ecosystem's carrying capacity in terms of resource development and waste assimilation.
  • Develop closed cycles of operation and consumption to minimize waste.
  • Offset the use of non-renewable resources by investments in renewable substitutes.
  • Stimulate innovation to facilitate the adaption of more efficient and greener technologies.

The principles shown at the center of the triangle are as follows:

  • Engineering processes holistically, use system analysis, and integrate environmental impact assessment tools.
  • Seek stakeholder involvement while respecting local subsidiarity and cultures.
  • Internalize all costs within the value of goods and services (polluters must pay).
Credit: based on concepts from Gagnon et al., 2008

Figure 1.3 lists the various principles of sustainable engineering versus environmental, social, and economic poles. Some of these principles clearly gravitate towards one of the corners of this triangle and thus address particularly societal, environmental, or economic concern. But some others, which are placed along the sides of the triangle, have connections to two of the poles of the diagram and address both societal and economic, or both economic and environmental concerns in some proportion. Those principles placed in the center of the diagram combine all three aspects of sustainability to a certain degree and hence their implementation would benefit all societal, environmental, and economic stakeholders. We should not consider this collection of principles set in stone. Many sources and organizations build on the existing documents and provide their own visions. I invite you to reflect on this diagram and provide your comments for making it more complete and more concrete for our future consideration.

These principles can be viewed as guidelines for a specific engineering project. We are going to look at a specific example where the engineering solution was able to address the need and benefit sustainability, not sacrificing one for the other.

Jubilee River Case Study

Reading assignment

Venables, R., Civil Engineering - Jubilee River, in Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles, Royal Academy of Engineering, Dodds, R., and Venables, R., Eds., 2005. pp. 11-14.

Note: I ask you to read the case study on pages 12-14 only! After that, please answer the self-check questions below.

This example presents a success story about how sustainable engineering has been applied to address a critical community need. The need is always placed in the center of an engineering project and directs design efforts. In this case, the need was a flood prevention system. While the traditional approach of creating the concrete trapezoidal channel would address the need perfectly and cost-effectively, it would have environmental and social trade-offs. For example, construction would destroy or disturb natural vegetation and wildlife, cause high soil erosion, create a large amount of construction waste, and have a negative aesthetic impact.

The alternative approach was to convert these problematic trade-offs into benefits. That required some additional investment and a wider range of collaboration among civil engineers, ecologists, and landscape architects. The result was creation of a permanent, landscaped, ecologically compatible relief channel, with amenities and environmental features of a natural river (Figure 1.5), which eventually became an asset to the community and increased rather than decreased the quality of life.

Left: water way surrounded by green and a bridge. Right: ducks on edge on grass and reeds
Figure 1.4. Current state of the Jubilee River landscape.
Credit: David Short (via Flickr)

To summarize the information in this reading, please provide answers to the following questions:

Self-check questions:

1. What was the key to making the Jubilee River channel stable under high flow conditions?

ANSWER:
Established vegetation (e.g. shrubs, trees) was necessary to fix the banks and to avoid excessive erosion.

2. What sustainable construction measures were implemented in the project?

ANSWER:
First, the routes for removal of excavation waste were established prior to the construction; second, the excavated gravel and soil were used for landscaping along the river banks.

3. What technology was used to plan and control excavation works and to prevent over-digging?

ANSWER:
Geographic positioning system (GPS) was used for careful planning and for optimizing the position and depth of excavation.

4. What were the key benefits of the Jubilee River project?

ANSWER:

(a) flood prevention (main need);

(b) better quality of life;

(c) maintained wildlife environment;

(d) protected land and soils;

(e) wise use of natural resources.

The goal of an engineering project can be to create a system, a device, a process, or any other outcome that would provide a certain service or benefit to society. One of the important outcomes of an engineering project is the creation of technology.

Role of Technology

Role of technology can be actually viewed as the interface that provides connection of an idea realized through design and engineering effort with practical and consumable outcomes, such as products or services. The latter would affect and shape societal lifestyle over time. Figure 1.4 presents a hierarchical view of these connections in the sustainability context.

Funnel Diagram: principles of sustainability to sustainable design to sustainable engineering to technologies to processes+products to lifestyle
Figure 1.5. Hierarchy of sustainability guidelines and role of technologies emphasized.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Figure 1.5 shows how the most general sustainability principles are narrowed down to specific material outcomes for the society. The principles of sustainability guide the sustainable design, the process of thinking. This stage determines how things are supposed to be made and how they will function over their whole lifecycle. Further down the funnel, the sustainable engineering stage deals with technical implementation of ideas. Sometimes it is not an easy process, and some aspects of design may be changed or compromised. When eventually the design and engineering routes practically converge, we may have a technology created. Technology provides processes and products. Only then the benefits of new ideas and new engineering developments become available to society. Here we can identify the role of technology as some sort of portal through which the established principles of sustainable design and engineering may affect people’s lifestyle. Because of people's strong dependence on multiple technologies, those become the factors that can facilitate change in society and can even become tools of manipulation and initiation of global trends.

Technology serves as a portal through which the established principles of sustainable design and engineering can reach the society and affect societal lifestyle. 

This way of thinking emphasizes the importance of technologies in the whole hierarchy of causes and factors that regulate the sustainable development.

Supplemental Reading

Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles, Royal Academy of Engineering, Dodds, R., and Venables, R., Eds., 2005.

This additional reading on this section provides you with some examples of sustainable engineering projects. These demonstrate the wide application of sustainable engineering thinking in such spheres as water management, chemical industry, and electronics.

Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., and Savard, L., Sustainable development in engineering: a review of principles and definition of a conceptual framework. Cahier de recherche / Working Paper 08-18, 2008.

1.5 Fundamentals of Systems Analysis

1.5 Fundamentals of Systems Analysis ksc17

To build the contextual framework for applying the sustainability principles, we need to develop some background in systems. We often hear terms like “systems thinking” or “systems approach”. Or in some cases, to initiate a sustainable and long-lasting change, we need to change the “system” rather than trying to change the final result. The material in this section is the tip of a bigger iceberg – system analysis is applicable to a very broad scope of problems, from economics to climatology, and it very often becomes a powerful tool in strategic decision-making. In this course, the systems approach will be essential when we consider technology trends and implementation in a broader societal context, where multiple forces – economic, environmental, political, educational, and psychological - come into play. It is not about simple ‘yes/no’ questions – it is our way to explore the complexity and possibly to find answers to ‘why’ questions for the most part. Let us start with some definitions.

Are we dealing with a system?

A system is an interconnected set of elements that is organized in a way that achieves a purpose. Three distinct entities of any system are elements, interconnections, and purpose (or function). These ensure system’s integrity and often determine such system’s properties and behaviors as development, resiliency, self-organization, self-repair, and eventually - sustainability. You can tell that you are dealing with a system, not a random collection of components, if you can identify the mutual impacts between the components and observe the outcome or behavior over time that is different from the outcomes or behavior of the separate components on their own.

For example, a forest is a system consisting of trees, soil, multiple species of flora and fauna – all of which are interconnected via food chains, nutrient flows, energy exchange, and many other chemical and physical processes. Its function is to provide environment and nutrition for sustaining living organisms and also to produce oxygen via photosynthesis. If one takes an element out of the system (e.g., taking a certain tree species and planting it in an isolated environment, or taking an animal and placing it in a zoo), those elements would behave differently, the same as the system deprived of a certain element will be affected and will react to the change.

In a social context, for example, a village is also a system, not a simple aggregation of houses and people. Houses may be connected through the utility networks, people are connected through trade, collaboration, and social relationships. Disruption of life and function on one side of the village would cause system’s reaction and change.

In the technical world, system functions can be even more obvious, since many engineering systems are designed by people for a specific purpose. Thus, a power plant system has a purpose to produce electric power and distribute it to a community or facility. It consists of equipment, workers, transportation means, fuel stocks, etc., all of which are interconnected in power production cycle.

How do you know that you are dealing with a system, not just a bunch of random things?

Answer these questions:

  • Can you identify the connections (mutual influences) between parts?
  • Do the parts working together produce a different result from that of each of the parts separately?
  • Does the behavior persist over time or trend in a certain direction (not random)?

If the answer is 'yes' to one or more of these questions, chances are you are dealing with a system, and you can expect systemic response if you try to change it.

System elements

Next, we are going to cover three types of elements that will be used in system analysis further on. Specifically, those include: stocks, factors, and decision points.

three types of elements included in system analysis (stock, factor decision)
Figure 1.6. Notations of three types of elements included in system analysis.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Stocks

Stocks can be represented by sort of matter, commodity, or good. Stocks are cumulative and are characterized by measurable amount. They can accumulate (increase), deplete (decrease), or stay steady. In system diagrams, we are going to show each stocks as a box.

Examples of stocks:

  • Money on the bank account
  • Number of trees in the forest
  • Number of people living in a town
  • Amount of food stored for winter
  • Amount of energy stored or generated at a power plant

Very often, the stability of a system depends on the maintenance of its stocks. If the bank account is stable or growing, we believe that whatever system maintains it is working well. If there is no decline in tree population, we assume the forest is healthy.

Factors

Factors can be represented by processes, flows, phenomena, actions, and even feelings that have influence within a system. Factors are measurable, but not necessarily cumulative, and are typically characterized by rates or intensity of process rather than countable amounts. Rates are important since they will affect the variations of stocks. In system diagrams, we are going to include factors in ovals.

Examples of factors:

  • Rate of tree growth in the forest
  • Air temperature at the forest location
  • Electricity price at local market
  • Solar irradiance at a specific location
  • Number of cups of coffee you drink per day

Almost anything can be included as a factor in a system, as long as its variation influences the system state or other elements.

Decision Points

Decision points are very special elements that represent deliberate controls of the system by humans. Humans make a variety of decisions, which may or may not be dictated by the system behavior, and can be based on knowledge, personal choices, feelings, political views, conscience, etc.

Examples of decision points:

  • Adopting a policy
  • Decision to invest in growth of business (or not)
  • Decision to restrict construction or practice
  • Decision whether the stock level is dangerously low

In system diagrams, we are going to depict decision points as diamonds.

There may be other elements that are distinguished in various system models. But for the sake of simplicity, we are going to mainly operate with the three elements described above.

System Connections

In a system, elements are interconnected and may influence one another. If connections are not identified, the collection of elements you have, may not be a system after all. The following types of connections are most important.

Positive Coupling

Positive coupling is when an increase in A results in an increase in B.

  • Increase in sunlight leads to higher solar panel output
  • Increase in coal combustion results in growth of CO2 emissions
  • More chickens, more eggs

This will also work backward: Fewer chickens, fewer eggs, etc.

This type of connection can be shown with a regular arrow:

Example of a positive coupling (chicken and eggs)
Figure 1.7. Example of a positive coupling.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Negative Coupling

Negative coupling is when an increase in A results in a decrease in B.

  • Increase in mileage decreases car’s service life
  • Amount of food consumed decreases the feel of hunger
  • Increase in spending decreases amount of money in the bank account

And again, vice versa, in case of a negative coupling, a decrease in A would increase B. You can check if this opposite connectivity works with the above examples (it is not always the case).

This type of connection can be shown with a circular arrow:

Example of a negative coupling (Stuff bought - money left)
Figure 1.8. Example of a negative coupling.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

It is important to understand that the connection drawn from A to B is not at all identical to the connection from B to A. We cannot simply put the arrow both ways automatically. For one of the example of positive coupling, we said: “increase in sunlight leads to higher solar panel output”. Obviously, the reversed relationship will not work: increase in solar panel output will NOT increase the amount of sunlight, and in fact it will not affect the amount of sunlight at all. So, before drawing the arrow from B to A, we need to think first if there is actually a reverse impact, and if yes, then whether it is a positive or negative coupling.

Feedback Loops

Feedbacks are very interesting properties of systems. Feedbacks are higher in the hierarchy of causal connections than couplings. While a coupling simply denotes the influence of one system element on another, feedbacks go further to show how those other elements impact the original cause. A feedback is always a loop, and therefore must contain at least two, but often more couplings in it. Here are some examples.

  • More chickens, more eggs. But if we have eggs that can hatch and produce more chickens, we have a reverse connection: more eggs, more chickens. This is feedback.
Example of a feedback loop – chicken and egg problem.
Figure 1.9. Example of a feedback loop – chicken and egg problem.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
  • More stuff bought, less money left. That is a negative coupling. However, the less money is available, the less stuff we can further buy. This is a positive connection on the way back. And again, using these two couplings, we can identify a feedback loop between these two elements.
Example of a feedback loop – shopping dilemma.
Figure 1.10. Example of a feedback loop – shopping dilemma.
Credit: Mark Fedkin © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

We can see from these two simple examples that feedback always “backfires” to the original element and affects any other element in the loop via circular impact.

Feedbacks are interesting internal mechanisms that can either stabilize or destabilize the system. In the next section of this lesson, we will consider two main feedback types – positive and negative – and see what effects they can cause.

Self-Check Questions

(There are three questions. Click on dots at the bottom to switch between questions. Click "check" at the bottom left of each question to check the answer)

1.6 Types of Feedbacks and Their Effects

1.6 Types of Feedbacks and Their Effects ksc17

Positive feedbacks

Imagine that you have some money in your bank account. The more money you have, the more interest you earn annually. That interest is added to your account balance, which earns you even more interest. So we can definitely see how A affects B, and B affects A in this case:

Positive feedback loop consisting of 2 stocks & 2 positive couplings (Money in bank & Interest)
Figure 1.11. Positive feedback loop consisting of two stocks and two positive couplings.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

As the two positive couplings act in circles within this loop, your account balance keeps growing. Such a feedback loop is called positive or reinforcing (here is the “+” sign in the loop), because the system sort of feeds itself continuously, amplifying the impacts over time. In the beginning, the growth may seem slow, but year after year, it goes faster and faster (see typical growth in savings in Figure 1.12). The more money is there, the more is added. This kind of growth is called exponential in mathematical terms (and there is an equation to describe this curve as a function of time).

Growth of account balance with 6% interest rate.
Figure 1.12. Growth of account balance with a 6% interest rate.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

Evidently, exponential growth can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what stock is growing. Here are some other examples of growth stimulated by positive feedback:

  • The more chickens there are in the barn, the more eggs they can lay. The more eggs there are to hatch, the more chicks will be produced which will grow the population of chickens.
  • The more soil is eroded, the fewer trees are able to grow on it. The fewer trees there are to stabilize the soil, the more erosion will occur.
  • The more individuals are infected with a virus, the more people they can potentially infect. The unrestricted dynamics of virus spread follow the infamous exponential curve.
  • In war or conflict, the more damage one side causes to the other, the more hatred and resistance are generated from the other side back to the first. Stronger pushback causes even harsher aggression, thus escalating the conflict.
  • The more a child plays a musical instrument, the more pleasure she gets from the sound, and the more willing she is to practice more.

Now think and add a couple of examples to the list. Can you draw a system diagram for any of these examples?

The positive feedback reinforces any change in whatever direction it goes. For that matter, it can be the reason for growth, and it can be the reason for decline and collapse. For example:

  • Profits fall because investments fall, but investments fall because profits fall…
  • The poorer people are, the harder it is for them to get an education. The less education they have, the harder for them to get out of poverty.

In the context of sustainability, positive feedbacks are classic de-stabilizers, often catering to short-term gains. Although called “positive”, ironically, these feedbacks can be responsible for “runaway” and “snowballing” effects, throwing the system out of balance and often leading to crisis, especially when system growth starts to push against system boundaries.

Negative feedbacks

Consider this example. The population of deer in the area leads to a higher rate of road collisions. The collisions kill a certain number of deer, thus reducing its population. Once the population of deer goes down, the road collisions become less frequent.

Negative feedback loop consisting of two stocks and positive and negative couplings (# Deer and Collisions).
Figure 1.13. Negative feedback loop consisting of two stocks and positive and negative couplings.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

We can still clearly see here how the result of the first positive coupling affects the initial stock. Such a feedback loop is called negative or balancing feedback (here is the “—“ sign inside the loop), because it does not allow the deer population to grow out of control. Of course, it is a simplified example, and in reality, there may be other ways of regulating the deer population (e.g. hunting) and minimizing collisions (e.g. fences, driver alerts).

Negative feedbacks are mechanisms of stability. They work both ways, not allowing the stock to go too low or too high. These feedbacks are very common in the natural world, where many systems are homeostatic. Some more examples:

  • Warmer weather induces more evaporation from rivers and lakes, thus creating clouds, which cool the air temperature. Once the temperature is cooler, evaporation is reduced, thus resulting in fewer clouds and a sunnier sky.
  • Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. More plants consume carbon dioxide from the atmosphere due to photosynthesis. Thus, bringing its concentration down.
  • Market price variation: if any product becomes of very high demand, its price grows until the supply meets the demand. If the price rises too high, fewer customers would buy it, so the price would go down again.
  • An office worker has to work, but feels sleepy, so he may drink some coffee to get his energy up. But drinking too much coffee can cause some health effects from too much caffeine, and he may decide to limit his coffee consumption. Here, the human decision to drink or not to drink coffee attempts to bring the energy level to the optimal level.

Now think and add a couple of examples to the list. Can you draw a system diagram for any of these examples?

When considering system resilience - the ability to bounce back from disturbances – look for negative feedback loops. Negative feedbacks are also culprits of resistance to change. Sometimes, changing undesirable existing practices is difficult because of feedbacks acting within the system.

Remember, in the case of positive feedback, any induced change accelerates; in the case of negative feedback, on the contrary, change slows down with time as the system reaches the optimum state.

How to determine the sign of feedback

Here is the rule of thumb for determining whether a feedback loop is positive or negative: combine signs of all couplings involved in the loops. For example: a loop of 2 positive couplings results in a positive loop:

( + 1 ) ( + 1 ) = ( + 1 ) 

A loop of 1 negative and 1 positive coupling results in a negative loop:

( + 1 ) (  1 ) = (  1 ) 

This is the same rule that we use in math when multiplying negative and positive numbers. If you count an odd number of negative couplings in the closed loop, the feedback is negative. If you count an even number of negative couplings in the loop, the feedback is positive.

This rule becomes especially useful when you analyze the feedback loops consisting of multiple couplings. Let us check out a couple of examples.

Examples of how feedbacks work in systems

Example 1: Albedo feedback in climate science.

Here we will consider the connections between four natural elements: solar energy absorbed by the Earth, atmospheric temperature, polar ice, and Earth albedo (reflective ability) (Figure 1.14). Polar ice caps play an important role in controlling the amount of solar energy obtained by the Earth. Due to the high reflective ability of ice, overall Earth’s albedo increases with the expansion of polar ice and decreases when ice melts. Here is the positive coupling between polar ice and albedo. When albedo is high, a large fraction of solar radiation is reflected back to space and is not absorbed by the Earth. Therefore, we can draw a negative coupling arrow from albedo to solar energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Next, we will establish the positive coupling between the solar absorption and surface temperature. The more energy is absorbed by the earth’s surface, the more heat will be emitted off the ground into the atmosphere, thus raising the atmospheric air temperature. Finally, higher global air temperature will result in a decline in polar caps by causing ice to melt – hence the negative coupling arrow to close the loop of connections. We have a feedback in the system!

System diagram for albedo feedback loop. Described in paragraph above.
Figure 1.14. System diagram for albedo feedback loop.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

To decide whether this feedback loop is negative or positive, we need to count all couplings involved:

( + 1 ) (  1 ) ( + 1 ) (  1 ) = ( + 1 )  this is a positive feedback!  

What does it mean, and what development can we expect from this system?

As we previously learned, positive feedbacks are destabilizing forces, which often lead to the accelerated shift of system from its current state. Indeed, the currently observed rise in global atmospheric temperature (global warming) is responsible for shrinking the polar ice caps. The fast decline in polar ice is observed in both poles and Greenland. This change gradually decreases the Earth’s albedo, and that makes the planetary surface absorb more solar radiation, thus pushing the atmospheric temperature further up. That secondary warming causes more ice melting etc. The more this process continues, the more warming is intensified, and the faster ice melts.

There is strong scientific evidence that the cause of the currently observed global temperature rise is anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And albedo feedback is an additional amplifier that can act fast and push the warming to much higher rates than CO2 alone.

This positive feedback can work in reverse as well. In the history of the Earth, the albedo feedback played a big role in establishing the “ice ages” on Earth, which were accompanied by very fast expansion of glaciers (polar caps) towards the continents.

Check Your Understanding

Probing Question

Consider how you would answer the question below, then click on the question to view the answer.

Example 2: Fish Pond

This example presents a much smaller system that is a very typical example of ecosystem that has reaching its carrying capacity. Imagine a small pond with a certain population of fish in it. To survive, the fish needs some food and oxygen in the water. The stock of fish is regulated by the factors such as reproduction rate and death rate. Let us identify some key couplings:

  • Reproduction rate is positively coupled with the number of fish. The higher the reproduction rate, the high the fish population
  • Death rate is negatively coupled with the number of fish. The high the death rate (for any reason, e.g. environmental conditions, disease, predators), the lower the fish population

We can depict these relationships in the system notation as follows:

relationships in the system notation (reproduction rate, fish, death rate)
Figure 1.15. Reproduction rate and death rate of fish.
Credit: Mark Fedkin
  • Food availability in the pond favors fish growth and reproduction rate. So this is a positive coupling.
  • In a finite-size system like a pond, the food supply can be limited, so if it is too low to support all the fish, fish will starve and die. Hence we can assume the negative coupling with the death rate

Let us add it to the diagram:

diagram (reproduction rate - fish - death rate - food availability)
Figure 1.16. Reproduction rate, food availability, and death rate of fish.
Credit: Mark Fedkin
  • The same as with food, oxygen supply is important for fish population health and growth – this is another positive coupling.
  • The limited oxygen supply due to any factors (e.g., eutrophication, overpopulation, etc.) will stress the fish, limits its reproduction, and possibly increase the death rate as well – this another negative coupling.
diagram (oxygen availability, reproduction rate, fish, death rate, food availability)
Figure 1.17. Factors impacting fish longevity
Credit: Mark Fedkin

There are a couple more important arrows to add:

  • The more fish are there in the pond, the less food remains available (food is not unlimited). This is the same situation as we have in any ecosystem, including humans – you need more and more food to feed a larger population. So we will draw a negative coupling between Fish and Food availability.
  • The more fish are there, the less oxygen is available. While the atmosphere can be considered unlimited compared to the size of the pond, oxygen has a limited and quite low solubility in water. Fish will consume it by breathing, but also dead fish decomposition will consume some of it. So there is definitely a negative coupling between the Fish and Oxygen.

Putting these final two connections onto the diagram, we obtain:

diagram (food availability, oxygen availability, fish, death rate, reproduction rate)
Figure 1.18. Factors impacting fish longevity
Credit: Mark Fedkin

Now let us identify the feedbacks. Are there any closed loops in the diagram? To have a complete feedback, we must be able to trace the couplings in one direction.

Check Your Understanding

Self-Check

Now let us determine whether each feedback is negative or positive using the rule of thumb explained in the previous sections. For example, for the upper left loop, starting with Fish, we have:

(  1 ) ( + 1 ) ( + 1 ) = (  1 )  It is a negative feedback!  

We can do the same to identify the other three loops in the diagram:

System diagram for Fish Pond system with four negative feedback loops
Figure 1.19. System diagram for Fish Pond system with four negative feedback loops (colored circles). Multiplication rule of thumb is shown for each loop to determine the feedback sign.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

This system appears to be full of negative feedbacks, and that is quite common for natural ecosystems. There are many regulating factors that keep the population of biological species in check. Once the system starts growing out of its capacity limits (food, oxygen supply), the feedbacks start dialing the numbers down until the optimum state (homeostasis) is restored. This example is a demonstration of how negative feedbacks tend to maintain the stability of the system at a certain level. Here we have as many as four mechanisms that help the system execute this goal.

Feedback loops with human decisions

The beauty and power of the system approach is that it can help explore inter-domain connections. Many systems currently exist at the interface of the natural and technological worlds and hence can include factors of economic, social, and environmental nature.

Many causal connections in the environmental systems are sort of predetermined and dependent on the laws of nature. For instance, if temperature increases, gas solubility in water decreases. If a ton of coal is burned, a certain amount of heat is released. If the ocean becomes more acidic, carbonate shells do not form. Those things are just physics and chemistry – there is no intelligent ruling behind them. However, causal connections may be different in human systems, because very often humans have a choice: to turn left or right; to approve or reject a policy; to invest or not to invest; to start the war or negotiation. Those decisions can make an impact within the system, but it does not mean they control the system. In fact, some intelligent (or dumb) decisions can very much be a product of system behavior. In other words, people may take decisions without realizing that they are being controlled by the system itself!

We mentioned before that one of the important system’s properties is function or purpose. The word purpose is more linked to human thinking, so systems can be created to fulfill a particular purpose. The word function is more typical for non-human systems, and function is often visible from the system’s behavior. Please note that human decisions can be made with a purpose in mind, but that purpose in the mind of an individual (perceived or apparent purpose) does not necessarily coincide with the purpose of the system (actual purpose). This is an important distinction. Here are some examples of such dual-purpose dilemma:

  • A musician may initially perceive their career in the music industry as art and a way of self-expression (perceived purpose), but the system may steer them towards songs that gain most popularity and make the most money (actual purpose);
  • A parent chooses to punish their child for bad grades with the purpose to make them work harder and to improve learning (perceived purpose), but punishment may cause the child to hide their grades or cheat for the sake of a better grade (actual purpose);
  • Cat meows loudly in the middle of the night to demand food from the owner. The owner gives the cat the food so that it let her sleep. But guess what – the cat comes back to meow every night now! Perceived purpose = keep the owner happy, actual purpose = keep the cat happy.

Understanding the system behavior can actually help us make smart decisions and steer the system purpose in the desired direction, even those decisions are not always intuitive.

Example 3: Honey Bee Hive

There are a number of environmental factors that sustain the purpose of the honey beehive. It needs a specific habitat with natural flora that provides bees with sources of nectar, clean air and water, which sustain vegetation. Human activities, such as agriculture using pesticides, industrial development, and water and air pollution can be highly disruptive to honey bee populations. We will try to put those factors onto the system diagram (Figure 1.20).

You can identify the positive feedback in this system, which is responsible for ecosystem growth under healthy environmental conditions, with bees and plants mutually benefitting each other. The anthropogenic (human activity) factors, shown by shaded circles, are negatively coupled with different factors in the system. We know that when a positive feedback exists in the system, it can work both ways. A drastic decrease in any of the factors in the loop can result in a fast decline of the entire system.

System diagram for honey bee hive system.
Figure 1.20. System diagram for the honey beehive system. The anthropogenic factors (shown by shaded circles) negatively impact the bee population directly and by undermining the key stocks: flora and clean air.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

Human decisions can interfere. For example, a decline in the main stock – honey bee population - below a certain critical level can be an alarm signal for the local conservation agencies, who can work with policy makers to protect the natural habitat and resources from excessive exploitation or pollution. That additional factor, when introduced to the system, creates several negative feedback loops that forcefully regulate the industrial factors and keep the system in balance (Figure 1.21).

System diagram for honey bee hive system with policy intervention (shown as colored diamond).
Figure 1.21. System diagram for honey bee hive system with policy intervention (shown as colored diamond).
Credit: Mark Fedkin

 

Check Your Understanding

Probing Question

Consider how you would answer the question below, then click on the question to view the answer.

Sustainability in system thinking

So, what would make the system like the ones exemplified above sustainable? A simple answer within the arbitrarily identified boundaries would be: the balance of the main stocks. The balance does not mean constancy, but rather refers to a range where system can recover from stock fluctuations through internal mechanisms. We already saw how stocks can be regulated by feedback loops that involve both physical forces (natural laws) and intellectual forces (human decisions). Here, we come to an important observation: human decisions need to conform with the natural processes. Natural and human forces must work with each other, not against each other, to support the capacity of the life-providing stocks. This takes us back to the first Hanover Principle of sustainable design. Systems thinking brings us to the right mindset for applying sustainability principles to a variety of case studies we will discuss in the remainder of this course. To extend your learning of the systems approach, you can refer to the additional reading materials:

More reading on systems

Book: D. Meadows, Thinking in Systems, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.

This book is a really great reading regardless your professional area – it starts with the basics and leads through the fascinating gallery of systems covering a variety of areas and providing some good examples. It uses slightly different terminology in diagrams than we use in this lesson, but emphasizes the same key ideas.

1.7 Growth, Delays, and Tipping Points

1.7 Growth, Delays, and Tipping Points ksc17

Growth

Since this lesson has some analysis and discussions of growth, it would be interesting to see how growth happens in system dynamics. Two types of growth we want to pay attention to are linear and exponential. Linear growth is when a value grows at a constant rate (slope). Positive couplings in systems are a usual cause of linear growth. For example, more product sold means higher profit; more fuel burned, more energy is released – those are simple observations. Exponential growth is different – it goes at an increasing rate – it accelerates! Systems with positive feedback loops often exhibit exponential growth, because the initial stock is continuously compounded by the positive couplings included in the loop.

Mathematically, these two types are schematically represented in Figure 1.22.

Graphic and mathematical representation of linear (left) and exponential (right) growth.
Figure 1.22. Graphic and mathematical representation of linear (left) and exponential (right) growth.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

One of the examples shown in the previous section was about the bank account with interest. Adding interest to your balance increases the initial stock and thus earns you higher interest. This illustrates how a positive feedback works. Another example is population growth. When unhindered, the positive feedback loops are expected to cause exponential changes in system stocks.

Example: How to Use Exponential Formula

f ( x ) = a b x 

This mathematical expression generically represents an exponential process. In this formula:

f(x) is a function – the amount we try to track over time. In the case of a bank account, it will be the account balance, or in case of population growth - the number of chickens, bacteria, or people.

a is the initial value, e.g., the account balance to start from or starting population of species.

b is the base, which indicates the factor by which the initial amount changes per unit of time. For example, if the number of bacteria doubles every hour, b=2. Or if the bank account grows by 6% every year, b=1.06.

x is an exponent, which acts essentially as a time coordinate. For example, if you try to calculate the function for 10 hours ahead, x=10.

Starting with 1 bacteria (a=1) and hourly doubling increase (b=2), in 10 hours we will have f ( x ) = 1 × 2 10 = 1024  bacteria.

Graph: Exponential growth with doubling rate.
Figure 1.23. Exponential growth with doubling rate.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

Self Check Questions

(click on dots below to switch between questions)

From the above examples, we can make a few interesting observations:

  • Exponential growth starts slow, but it becomes fast very fast.
  • The result of exponential growth is very hard to predict intuitively because we are used to thinking linearly
  • Very often, exponential growth is the result of positive feedback in the system
  • Negative (balancing) feedbacks are one way to limit system growth
  • Exponential growth cannot be sustainable within a finite-size system and reaching capacity crisis is only a matter of time.

Linear growth is typically a result of a positive coupling. Exponential growth is typically a result of a positive feedback loop. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.

TRY THIS! Activity

Shortcut on exponential prediction.

The time over which the exponentially growing stock doubles in size is called “doubling time”. You can estimate the doubling time by dividing 70 by the growth rate (in %).

Example 1: The bank account having \$1000 and a 6% interest rate will double (to $2000) in 70/6 = 11.7 years.

Example 2: The Earth's population is currently close to 7,832,000,000 and is growing at ~1.05% annually. When will it double if the rate stays the same? Answer: 70/1.05 = 66.6 years

Delays

When we discussed couplings in systems, we mentioned that such causal connections exist when A affects B in either a positive or negative way, but we did not pay much attention to how fast that happens. Some changes can be almost instantaneous (or at least seem like that). For example, clouds moving across the sky immediately change the flow of solar energy coming down to earth, and suddenly we feel cooler, or if the sunlight is used for electric generation, the voltage of the solar panel quickly drops. But other changes may take minutes, hours, days, years, and even millennia. That essentially means we have a delay between the cause and its effect.

Examples of systemic delays are multiple. Here are just a few:

  • Incubational period of a viral disease – time between virus entering the body and symptoms
  • Forest growth – time between seeds germinate in the soil and trees reaching a certain height;
  • Greenhouse effect in climate – time between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase and global temperature increase
  • Prices in the market – time between supply or demand grow and decision to adjust the price for a product.

The larger the system, the greater the volume of the stock, the longer it takes for it to respond to change. That is why planetary system often experiences changes (climate, ocean chemistry, geochemical cycles) with significant delays - at the scale of thousands and millions of years. That is why technological, economical, and cultural changes often happen much faster at the community level than at the national level.

Delays are important to take into account in system analysis, since they impact system behavior and resilience. Delays in every coupling in the negative feedback loop would add up, thus postponing system response to perturbation. When uncompensated, the perturbation lasts longer, pulling system further off balance.

One of the favorite examples of systemic delay is shower. Have you ever experienced this situation: the water feels too cold and you adjust the hot water knob to make it warmer, but nothing happens, so you adjust it even more, and a little bit more… and then you feel it! It finally gets warmer, but soon enough it feels too hot, and you jump aside and start adjusting the knob in the opposite direction. It takes quite a bit before it is comfortable to stand under water again, but once you think you finally got it, water gets too cold again, and the fine-tuning continues..

We can also depict this process in a system diagram if you wish:

System diagram illustrating shower temperature regulation
Figure 1.24. Shower system diagram with water regulation feedbacks. Coldness of water draws down the comfort level and prompts the responder to adjust the knob to increase the hotness of water, which is supposed to bring the comfort level to optimal. There are two negative feedback loops that help stabilize the system. However, the delay in the couplings between the knob adjustment and actual hotness of water felt by the person (shown by red marks) results in the adjustments being disproportional with the anticipated temperature change.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

In this process, the temperature of water goes up and down, only bypassing the optimal comfort temperature, resulting in oscillation. Eventually, understanding the delay, you start being more patient, wait for the change and make smaller adjustments. With a few more overshoots, you finally reach the optimal temperature. The system is stabilized!

Why are you able to stabilize the system eventually? In the process of regulating water temperature, you learn – you get information about how long the delay is between the knob turn and actual water temperature change. You also learn how much the temperature changes per certain degree of knob turning. Of course, you process this information almost subconsciously, and it takes a little bit of trial and error.

Oscillation curve showing system stabilization over time
Figure 1.25. Common oscillation pattern for a parameter observed in systems that are regulated by negative feedbacks with delays.
Credit: Mark Fedkin

Many other systems with negative feedbacks – for instance, regulation of inventory stock based on supply and demand, regulation of earth climate by biota – may exhibit similar oscillations that complicate the system behavior.

Very often, regulating the system operation to improve its performance comes down to managing its delays. Interestingly, acting fast in the system with delays may only exacerbate the situation and make negative impacts and further delays even more dramatic. Instead, understanding delays and letting them run their course may be a better strategy to optimize system performance [Eakes, 2018].

In summary:

  • Delays may significantly affect the system behavior and stability.
  • As a rule, the larger the system, the longer the delays.
  • Delays often result in disbalance, overshoots, and oscillations in systems.
  • Uncovering and understanding delays can help improve system performance.

Tipping points

Schematic showing a ball balancing on the tip of a cliff

Tipping points is another interesting phenomenon that occurs in some systems. This topic can certainly be a subject for a deeper discussion, but it is worth mentioning it here at least briefly.

Tipping point is a special condition in a system, at which a very small perturbation or causes a large or even catastrophic change. Obviously, the small change is not the main cause, but only a trigger, the last drop in a long and sometimes complicated chain of interactions and events that lead the system to this condition. The term “tipping point” originated in the mathematical catastrophe theory and only recently started to be used in the global environmental context. Most frequently, tipping points are investigated in the relation to climate science and ecology.

Tipping points are frightening because they are not easily predictable, and when the tipping events are triggered, there is no way to reverse the process. Also the events that occur when a system passes through a tipping point are usually dramatic, proceed at a high rate, and have no forewarning. Therefore, understanding the nature and the actual causes behind the tipping points is important for designing preventive measures. Tipping points are very characteristic of systems with counteracting negative and positive feedbacks.

If you are compelled to read more about this concept, additional explanations and some good examples are given in the following reading:

Optional Reading

Review Article: Lenton, T.M., Environmental Tipping Points, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013. 38:1–29.

URL: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-102511-084654

It should be understood that tipping points are not results of external forces, which can also cause dramatic shifts and catastrophes, but are rather internally justified. Another take-away is that, like any other systemic phenomena, tipping points can happen in both natural and social worlds – they are not only confined to the physical processes. Tipping points are observed in societal systems and can be marked by major paradigm shifts, dramatic changes in thinking, decision making, and political transformations. It is very possible that passing of the human society from the current state to a new state with a higher degree of sustainability may also require passing through a tipping point when some traditional worldviews are rejected, and new ones are adopted. Hence, the tipping points do not only present risks, but also opportunities in socio-economic evolution.

Boundaries and system hierarchy

It should be noted that any system model is always a simplification, and system analysis has to be iterative to identify the most significant controls and relationships that determine system operation and stability. Although limited, system analysis can provide interesting insights into system behavior, helps understand the trends in social and technological development, and provides grounds for short-term and long-term predictions.

While real systems are often complicated, making the system model overly complex is not practical - it is important to set boundaries, which would help constrain the analysis and provide answers to practical questions. Boundaries are defined by the observer. Boundaries do not mean that the system is isolated from the outer world, they simply set limits; any entities beyond system boundaries are assumed to be of minor relevance and are not examined in detail until the current model requires. For example, in the honeybee hive system described earlier, we do not consider the factor of climate, even though it is important. In the short term analysis, we simply assume it is constant. Also, we do not include economic factors such as the honey market or artificial beekeeping, etc., leaving them outside the system boundaries and just focusing on the health of the natural ecosystem.

Virtually any system is a hierarchy. That means that any system consists of smaller subsystems, and any system, in turn, may be considered as an element of a bigger system. The tree itself is a system; the soil bed is a system; any biological organism is a system with its own control factors. At the same time, the forest can be considered as a sub-system of eco-region, which is, in turn, may be perceived as a sub-system of the planet, etc. This is another reason for setting boundaries and choosing system scale before engaging in system analysis.

1.8 Global Sustainability System

1.8 Global Sustainability System szw5009

Global sustainability system

To set the framework for applying sustainability principles to engineering activities and technologies, let us for a while widen the angle of our view and first look at the global interconnections. Later on, when zooming in to particular processes and technologies, some of these global elements and loops may remain beyond the boundaries of our viewfinder. However, it will be important to keep these large-scale connections in mind.

The scheme in Figure 1.26 includes both physical and social systems in consideration. Physical systems are shown by several overlapping spheres in the upper part of the diagram: the first one is biosphere (which includes the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems), the second one is the anthroposphere (which encompasses the agricultural, industrial, and urban systems); both of these are positioned at the triple boundary between the atmosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth. The sun symbol above indicates the unlimited light resource. We can expand the anthroposphere box, indicating the significant role played by engineering projects as human activity. Design and engineering result in creation of products, infrastructures, processes, and services, which all increase the extent and influence of the technical cycle. The Engineering Projects box is linked to Individuals box, meaning that technical progress is incurred by and benefits individuals in the social sphere. The feedback we can assume here is possible disturbance of the natural systems due to expansion of the anthropogenic technical systems. This expansion, in turn, can jeopardize the benefits human beings and societies derive from the environment. Individuals are given a central place in the framework since physical and social systems both contribute towards their well-being. The Social Systems box at the bottom of the diagram provides a more detailed representation of those benefits, which include economic, political, scientific, legal, educational values and communications. Shown social sub-systems, such as Families, Communities, Networks, and Organizations, interact to a various degree with the main social systems and fulfill certain functions. This framework diagram is very broad, and each box could be presented as a separate sub-system with its own internal connections. But this is the big picture, which allows us to contemplate on the diversity of the factors that contribute to the sustainability of human society.

Now, think where technology fits into this diagram. Virtually, it fits anywhere at the connections of the anthropogenic spheres with the physical systems. For example, through technologies, society can utilize natural resources. We also understand that technologies can do both: reconcile the processes and matter flows between the anthroposphere and environmental spheres and create conflicts between them. Thus, engineering projects undermining the resilience or adaptability of ecosystems, social systems, or individuals might bring benefits in the short term but are likely to have long-term negative outcomes. What we call sustainable technologies are designed to render the feedbacks and connections mutually harmless or mutually beneficial in the best-case scenario. To assess technologies from this angle, we need to learn to recognize the feedbacks and effects they create on a large scale.

Summary & Activities

Summary & Activities mjg8

Lesson #1 started introducing you to the sustainability context, reviewing the main philosophical principles of sustainability as well as practical guidelines applied to sustainable design and engineering. From these philosophies, we can clearly see that any analysis of engineering projects, technologies, and processes from the standpoint of sustainable development must be done in a wider framework, which includes environmental, economic, and social forces.

Here, we also browsed through the important background of systems approach, which emphasizes interconnections and feedbacks as controls of system stability or instability. Based on this review, we started to determine the role of technology in the dynamics and function of anthropogenic systems. We can see that technologies work at interfaces between the physical world and society. Technologies can be efficient tools regulating the system inputs and outputs, and also can serve as drivers of change and lifestyle builders in society. This prepares us for the next step – developing the metric system and methods for technology evaluation in the next lessons.

Assignments for Lesson 1

TypeAssignment DirectionsSubmit To
ReadingComplete all necessary reading assigned in this lesson. There is a lot of reading, but it provides essential background for us to move forward towards practical objectives. 
Discussion

Growth / No-growth Dilemma. We will start off with a debate on the growth / no-growth dilemma. Read the two web articles referred in Section 1.2: Daly's article "From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy" and Ellis's article "Overpopulation is not the Problem". Make a forum post (limit to 250 words) expressing your opinion to the questions: (1) Is sustainable society achievable? (2) Do you think that sustainability and economic growth are conflicting paradigms? (which of the authors do you agree more with?) (3) What are trade-offs, alternatives, or breakthroughs that may be needed in solving the sustainability puzzle? Just express your opinion.

Please read others' posts and comment on at least two of them. Follow up on any comments made to your post.

Deadline for initial posting – this Sunday. Post your comments to other threads by the end of the lesson Wednesday.

Canvas: Lesson 1 Discussion
Activity

Systems thinking exercise (see Lesson 1 Activity Sheet on Canvas):

  • Prepare a system diagram for a simple model system.
  • Identify the stocks, factors, and decision points.
  • Draw arrows to show connections between elements (couplings)
  • Identify feedback loops if there are any.
  • Provide annotation to the schematic to explain how the system works and what forces keep it sustainable.
  • If you were to add some technologies to the system to improve its sustainability, what kinds of technologies would they be? Provide a brief discussion on this point.

Schematic can be either hand-drawn and scanned to file or made with a graphic software. Please type your annotation. Submit your assignment in a single PDF or MS Word file.

Deadline – Wednesday night 11:55 pm (your local time!)

Canvas: Lesson 1 Activity

References for Lesson 1:

Becker, C.U., Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research, Ch. 2. Meaning of Sustainability, Springer 2012.

Chapman, J., Design for (Emotional) Durability, Design Issues, v.25, Issue 4, 29 (2009).

Daly, H., From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy, in The Encyclopedia of Earth, 2009.

Eakes, S., Managing Delays, System Thinker, Leverage Networks, 2018. URL: https://thesystemsthinker.com/managing-delays [Accessed 01/2021]

Ellis, E., Overpopulation is not the Problem, New York Times, Sept.13, 2013.

Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., and Savard, L., Sustainable development in engineering: a review of principles and definition of a conceptual framework. Cahier de recherche / Working Paper 08-18, 2008.

Kump, L.R., Kasting, J.F., and Crane, R.G., The Earth System, 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, 2010.

Lenton, T.M., Environmental Tipping Points, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013. 38:1–29.

McDonough, W., The Hannover Principles.Design for Sustainability, William McDonough Architects, 1992.

McDonough and Braungart, M., Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press, NY 2002.

Meadows, D.H., Thinking in Systems, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT, 2008.

Odum, H.T., Self-Organization, Transformity, and Information, Science 242, 131, 1988.

Rodriguez, S.I., Roman, M.S., Sturhahn, S.C., and Terry, E.H., Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan Ann Arbor Campus, Report of the Center for Sustainable Systems, No. CSS02-04, 2002.

UN Document: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2, Geneva, Switzerland, March 20, 1987.

Venables, R., Civil Engineering - Jubilee River, in Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles, Royal Academy of Engineering, Dodds, R., and Venables, R., Eds., 2005. pp. 11-14.