The Dominant Economic Model
and Sustainable Development:
Are they Compatible?
A critical contribution to the mid-term evaluation of the Fifth Programme of
the EU
"Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to
Environment and Sustainable Development"
Report of the Working Group
European Ecumenical Commission
for Church and Society
The Ecumenical Centre
Rue Joseph II, 174
B-1000 Brussels
1
%%$
Introduction
p. 3
I
Why Should Churches Take up the Issue?
p. 5
II
Sustainable Development in the Context of the European Union
p. 7
III How Should Sustainable Development be Defined?
- Some Building Blocks
p. 10
IV Obstacles in Translating Concepts of Sustainable Development
into Economic Policy. The Need for Dialogue
p. 14
V Some Problem Areas that Could be Covered in a
"Catalogue of Minimum Recommendations"
p. 16
Three Case Studies: Energy, Transport and International Trade
VI
Case Study 1: Energy and Sustainable Development
Conclusions
p. 21
p. 38
VII Case Study 2: Transport and Sustainable Development
Conclusions
p. 40
p. 57
VIII Case Study 3: International Trade and Sustainable Development p. 60
Conclusions
p. 69
IX
Some Theological Comments
p. 71
List of Members of the EECCS Ecology - Economy Working Group p. 79
2
Introduction
"The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations"1.
For a brief fortnight in June 1992 the environment and sustainable development were at the top of
the world's agenda. No other issue had ever mobilised so many heads of states to meet. The Rio
Earth Summit remains as a symbol of the seriousness of the concern for the future of the world.
In response to the Earth Summit the Member States of the European Union adopted the
"Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable
Development". This is being evaluated during 1995. In order to contribute to this process the
member churches of the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society (EECCS)
established a Working Group with the brief to examine sustainable development and its implication
for policies and societies in Europe. This report is the result of that exercise.
This report starts by exploring why Churches have an interest in the issue of sustainable
development (Chapter I). Current policies of the European Union in this area are then outlined and
discussed in Chapter II. In Chapter III we develop our understanding of sustainable development in
relation to models of economics which take into account the need for ecological integrity. Chapter
IV looks to the obstacles which exist against translating concepts of sustainable development into
economic policy and calls for a dialogue between policy makers and the European churches.
Drawing from these opening four chapters, we propose a set of minimum recommendations aimed
at reorienting the current economic system towards this vision of sustainable development (Chapter
V).
In the following three Chapters (VI to VIII), we have put these recommendations to the test in a
series of three case studies which explore in some depth the implications of implementing this
vision of sustainable development in the areas of energy, transport and trade. Energy and transport
were chosen as perhaps the most important sectors among the five selected targets of the Fifth
Environmental Programme. Trade was selected because, reflecting many concerns in our churches,
the Working Group wished to draw attention to the global dimension of any concept of sustainable
development for Europe. Conclusions are drawn at the end of each of these case studies. The final
Chapter (Chapter IX) then gathers together the insights of the whole report in a theological
reflection which sets the issues in the broader context of our understanding of the world as God's
creation, and the responsibilities and opportunities this gives us.
The report as a whole reflects a consensus in our Working Group over the goal of sustainable
development, but it also recognises that there are two approaches to its implementation. A more
idealistic one which calls for a radical reorientation of policies here and now, and a more pragmatic
one which seeks a more gradual reform, though still with a major change as its goal.
The Working Group undertook its brief in a conciliar manner. Chapters were produced by
individual members, and revised after much discussion by the group, and by member churches. The
whole report was then subjected to a peer review by experts from many of our churches at a
Consultation held in October 1994, in response to a generous invitation from the Arnoldshain
Academy and the Evangelical Church of Hessen Nassau in Germany. From the many useful
comments received, the report was extended and revised into its present form in June 1995.
1
in n.t. Revelation 22.2
3
The Working Group offers this revised document to:
1)
2)
3)
The Commissioners of the Commission of the European Community to aid mutual discussion
and the Commission's decision-making process;
The Conference of European Churches as a contribution to their European programme on
"Environment and Development";
The member churches of EECCS for reflection and local action.
It is the hope of the Working Group that the vision and recommendations of this report will be
evaluated and taken up by the Commission of the European Union, National Governments,
Regional Authorities and Churches forming a part of their on-going commitment to move towards
sustainable development.
Please sow some seeds and plant some trees for the healing of the nations.
On behalf of the working group
Helmut von Verschuer, Moderator
June 1995
4
I
Why Should Churches Take up the Issue?
1.1 A New Vision for Changing Times
At the end of the second millennium, Europe is in the middle of major and profound
change. The collapse of the iron curtain has changed the geopolitical map, replacing the
antagonistic balance of power of East and West with a new rise of nationalism. While
philosophers speculate on the end of the era of Enlightenment, the relentless march of
technology continues to transform our lives and opens new challenges to our ethical
attitudes. In the economic world, consumerism and the dominance of the market are
eroding the welfare models of the state, but they seem unable to combat the scourge of
unemployment. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor widens daily, both within our
own countries and globally. Together, these changes have brought an ideological
vacuum, and a fragmented and individualistic society, with little moral consensus but a
sense of unease for the future. Amidst all these upheavals we have, perhaps above all,
become aware of the unparalleled damage we are doing to the environment of our planet
on which we depend.
It is into this context that we in the churches present a vision for sustainable development
which unites economic, social and environmental spheres, and brings a much needed
spiritual dimension to bear. Within this vision, we spell out criteria which would help us act
more responsibly and relationally, in which we can take due account of the rights of future
generations. These criteria provide foundations on which to evaluate not only the
economic opportunities of science and technology, but also to weigh up the ethical
challenges which they bring. Even more, the criteria provide a basis to judge the way the
dominant economic paradigms of efficiency, profitability, competitiveness and growth are
being interpreted and applied, and to point, where necessary, to more acceptable and
sustainable approaches.
1.2 Why Should Churches Take up the Issue?
Because of their special role in civil society the churches have an important part to play in
this ethical discussion. Historically they have formed the moral and ethical foundation of
so much of European society. Today they bring to a now fragmented culture their concern
for the universal issues of life, and they contribute a long-term and holistic vision for
society, which unites economic and ecological, individual and communal, political and
spiritual. The churches thus have a vital role as a partner in dialogue with politicians on
the key issues of our times, and are pleased to join with the European institutions in the
search for a viable model for sustainable development. EECCS acts to facilitate the
representation of its member churches to these institutions, and is especially suited to
initiate this discussion.
There is a second reason why the commitment of the churches is justified. Questions
about the environment go well beyond those of organising society in political, economic
and social fields. Even the global dimension of the problems mentioned earlier is more
than just a geographical matter. There is an underlying issue of relationship. What are the
threads running through all these complex problems which will reveal how they are
interrelated? These questions are ultimately theological and spiritual ones. As we seek to
5
answer them from our theological understanding, the churches have a unique role to play
in helping clarify what are the most important terms of this debate, and so point to
solutions.
1.3 Our Theological Reflection
In the light of all these factors, we believe an indispensable element of this report is the
theological reflection and comment which conclude it. These are to be seen as a
contribution to the ongoing ecumenical discussion on "Justice, Peace and the Integrity of
Creation", on which the churches are actively engaged worldwide.
This exercise is also involving us in a critical reappraisal of some of our own theological
traditions. Given the geographical and political context of the authors of this paper, our
reflections are limited to the traditions of the Western churches, which have laid such a
strong imprint on the evolution of the western society. Today we are questioning some
aspects of the evolution in which we have played a part. In particular, we have begun to
see the need to free ourselves from an understanding of reality which owes more to
Descartes than to the spirit of the two Testaments. We are seeking a different balance of
certain elements of our faith. Especially we need to question the ideological underpinning
which our faith has given to an unlimited concept of linear economic growth, and to the
attitude which regards the created order too much as a resource to be exploited, and too
little as a gift to be treasured.
To carry out a proper theological reflection in this context would require a two-stage
process. First, we would need to examine critically the basis of the theological discourse
which seems to have served as an ideological support for a concept of linear growth.
Secondly, we need to identify the theological reference points which should form the basis
for the churches' contribution to the debate on sustainable development. We recognise,
however, that such a systematic and comprehensive theological discussion would go well
beyond the framework of this paper, and risk upsetting its balance. Consequently, our
reflections in Chapter IX adopt a more questioning and reactive style.
6
II
Sustainable Development in the Context of the
European Union
2.1 What the Treaties Say
The European Union is an economic community in the first instance, as is stated in Article
of the Treaty of the E.E.C. The basic idea then was that the achievement of a common
market would "promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of
economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an
accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States
belonging to it".
Title I Article B of the Treaty of Union (the Maastricht Treaty) declares:
"The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
- to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable".
Title II Article 2:
"The Community shall have as its task... to promote throughout the Community a
harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and noninflationary growth respecting the environment..."
Title II Article G Article 3(k) states that "for the purposes set out in Article 2 the activities of
the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty... a policy in the sphere of the
environment."
Articles 130 R and 130 S specify the objectives of the environmental policy, the way it
should be implemented, and the criteria on which it should rest. Amongst these are:
- the precautionary principle and preventive action;
- the "polluter pays" principle;
- the integration of requirements of environmental protection into the definition and
implementation of other policies.
2.2 Comments on the Treaties
Obviously environment and sustainable development are part of the objectives. This in
itself is clearly to be seen as progress. However, the definitions remain vague and are
subject to a wide range of interpretations. It seems that economic growth has still priority.
Much depends on how one should understand the words "a balanced and sustainable
economic and social progress". Effective implementation depends for a large part on the
political willingness to give real content to sustainable development and not to subordinate
it to the goals of economic growth. The development model of the Union (this is true more
or less for the Member States as well) remains still anchored on a traditional
understanding of growth.
Undoubtedly the Treaty of Maastricht is creating an institutional framework enabling a new
development of environmental policy. However, comparing Article G (k) with other articles
dealing with the environment, it becomes evident that no common policy is envisaged.
This is in contrast to the case for example of agriculture, where common policy is
substituted for national policies. This limitation has to be seen in the light of Article 3 (b)
which sets out the principle of subsidiarity: "the Community shall take action... only and in
so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the
7
Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action,
be better achieved by the Community".
Furthermore, the Treaty requests unanimity from the Council for policies to be
implemented in the following fields:
- provisions primarily of a fiscal nature (CO2 tax);
- measures concerning country planning, land use and management of water resources;
- measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy
sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
2
2.3 The Fifth Programme
The "Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and
Sustainable Development" is in line with this new dimension and is undoubtedly looking for
a new strategy in the field of environment and development. It recognises, for the first
time, the need for a comprehensive and targeted approach towards environmental issues
at Community level. It takes as its starting point the need to involve all the relevant
"actors" in society, in a spirit of joint or shared responsibility to achieve sustainable
development. It focuses on five main target areas ) industry, agriculture, energy, transport
and tourism ) where environmental problems are most acute and where action could
entail most benefit for the environment as a whole.
Furthermore it recognises the need to ensure that environmental considerations are fully
integrated into all other policies. The Fifth Programme also admits that, in the light of the
experience of the past, the legislative or regulatory approach is not sufficient.
In parallel with the political integration, which is necessary as a result of Maastricht, the
Fifth Programme specifically advocates not only the traditional "command and control"
approach but also three other measures, as follows.
Economic/Fiscal Instruments
A variety of possibilities exist, including:
- Charges and levies to discourage pollution at source.
- Fiscal incentives such as focusing taxes on those activities which damage the structure
of economic resources, including the environment, and which at the same time drawing
them away from those areas which have a negative effect on employment or investment.
- State aid, for example to encourage investment in environmental equipment and clean
production processes.
- Environmental auditing, as an internal management tool to indicate performance on
consumption of raw materials and energy, productivity levels and waste.
- An integrated approach to environmental liability, designed to provide a clear incentive
for the management and control of risk, pollution and waste.
Financial Support Mechanisms
The full integration of the environmental dimension in the disbursement of the
Community's Structural Funds and other sources of finance.
2
The Fifth Action Programme was preceded by four Community action programmes on the environment
over the past two decades. It has given rise to about 2000 pieces of legislation covering pollution of the
atmosphere, water and soil, waste management, safeguards in relation to chemicals and biotechnology,
product standards, environmental impact assessments and protection of nature.
8
Horizontal Instruments
For example, information, education and data gathering.
2.4 Comments on the Fifth Programme
Deepening the analysis of the Programme brings us to the same conclusion as we arrived
at when analyzing the Treaty of Maastricht: the dilemma which confronts all environmental
policies of the Community. Squeezed between the principle of subsidiarity on the one
hand and the necessity to reach unanimity for the most important fields (energy) and
instruments (taxes) on the other hand, the Community has a hard job in defining where it
stands and what the content of its environmental policy should be. Moreover, to enable
the integration of environmental policies in the different policies presupposes that those
different policies have been decided or at least are controlled at the level of the
Community. This implies that the implementation of the concept of environmental policy is
dependent to a large degree on the development of sectoral policies, even if these are
achieved in the form of a consensus in relation to the corresponding national policies. In
four of the five sectors mentioned, corresponding policies only exist in embryo.
For this reason, the fear is justified that the Fifth Programme, as has been the case with its
four predecessors, will be confronted with the same unreadiness or hesitation of the
Governments of the Member States to develop common sectoral policies.
Indeed, despite the adoption of more than 200 pieces of Community legislation over the
past twenty years covering most of the major environmental problems, there still remains
an enormous amount to be done if we are not to be accused by our children and
grandchildren of handing over to them an environmental situation worse than the one we
inherited.
3
2.5 The White Paper
In Chapter 10 of the White Paper, the plea is made for a "new development model". The
reason given is that the present one is leading to a sub optimal use of work and nature.
"The Community needs to analyse in which ways economic growth can be promoted in a
sustainable way which contributes to higher intensity of employment and lower intensity of
energy and natural resources use". But even here in Chapter 10, the point of departure
remains economic growth.
3
This White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment. The Challenges and Ways Forward into
the 21st Century", is the result of an initiative taken by Jacques Delors, President of the Commission, at the
Summit of Copenhagen (June 1993) and of a cooperation between the Member States and the Commission.
It was accepted by the European Council (December 1993). It "sets out to foster debate and to assist
decision-making at decentralised, national or Community level so as to lay the foundations for sustainable
development of the European economies, thereby enabling them to withstand international competition while
creating the millions of jobs that are needed." (Introduction, p.3)
9
III How Should "Sustainable Development" be Defined?
– Some Building Blocks
3.1 Sustainability
–
an Approach from Systems Theory
3.1.1
In this paper the EECCS Working Group on Economy and Ecology is concerned
with the concept of sustainability. We will start discussing this concept from a systems
analysis approach. Systems analysis is an analytical tool which is understandable to both
economists and ecologists, enabling us to address sustainability in a manner that is
understood by both of these groups of experts.
3.1.2
It is impossible to "know" the future. If we wish to assess how sustainable a
particular mode of development might be, we can do so in terms of the probability of the
risks that it might pose in the near future. We can analyse these risks by considering the
following steps:
- the possible consequences of our actions, or lack of action;
- the possible scale on which such consequences could occur;
- the probability that such consequences might actually occur.
3.1.3
With a systems analysis approach to sustainable development we can identify
risks at the level of input, the level of output and the level of the shifting consequences.
These risks may be to the natural environment, to the next generation in the so-called
developed world, and to the present generation in the "developing" world. But risks may
be perceived differently for economic systems and for ecosystems.
So when we consider them together it will be necessary to weigh such different risks as:
- the uncertain but potentially very serious consequences of rapid climatic change on the
environment, and
- the possible destabilisation of the world economy if there were a radical switch from nonrenewable energy sources, coupled with a drastic reduction in the use of energy.
It is often the case that avoiding one set of risks involves accepting – or even seeking –
others. Opting for one specific strategy in one particular segment of the economy –
agriculture or transport, for example – may well entail serious risks in different sectors in
the complex world we find ourselves in today. Introduction of genetically manipulated
species, for example, may enhance the competitive position of agriculture for the time
being, but may entail risks of the undesirable spread of genetic material that formerly did
not occur naturally, and may not deliver the benefits which were claimed.
In avoiding such risks a set of guiding principles may be applied, amongst which the
following are the most important:
The Best Evidence Principle
This means that we should obtain the best evidence before weighing up what action to
take to remedy an environmental problem, especially if large resources are likely to be
involved. It should include take care that measures we put into practice to address one
problem do not lead to worse problems in another area.
10
The Precautionary Principle
This recognises that there are limits to how far we can expect "best evidence". Where a
threat to the environment is serious and imminent, we cannot afford to say that we need
more data for a high degree of proof before we can act. Thus for global warming, although
the correlation of atmospheric emissions and climate change still awaits confirmation, we
cannot wait until we see full evidence, because by the time we do, much serious damage
will be done. By this principle, it is imperative to set environmental targets sooner than
later, because, if we wait, remedial action would prove far more costly and indeed may by
then be impossible in some cases.
In many cases it will not be possible to find an adequate way in which to calculate the
costs of these risks in monetary terms. But this does not mean that an "internalization of
external costs" should not be begun. On the contrary, even a first crude attempt in this
direction could begin to effect changes in market relationships which would move the
economic system towards sustainability. This would need to incorporate a monitoring
scheme which would enable ongoing updating and revision.
3.1.4
With a systems analysis approach to sustainable development we identified
risks at the level of input, the level of output and the level of "shifting" consequences.
Against this background, a system can be considered sustainable if, and only if:
- the necessary "inputs" (resources) remain available on a long-term or even a permanent
basis. Their composition may change. In the area of energy supply, different sources may
replace one another, provided that their use has the desired effect;
- the inputs are available to make it possible to produce the necessary outputs on a
continuous basis;
- any transferring of undesirable effects on to the natural environment, or on to present or
future generations, are to be restricted to an acceptable level.
3.1.5
In physical terms, the most important risk is the degradation of the planet's life
support systems, leading to impairing the quality of life, and to unnecessary death, pain
and distress, and also endangering the delicate balance on which all life in God's creation
depends. In ecological terms, the most important risk is that a species, a biotope, or even
an entire ecosystem will become extinct by human intervention and action, be it at a local,
a regional or even at the global level. It may disappear for a certain period of time (locally
or regionally) or even permanently. This ecological risk can take on different forms:
- a biotope can disappear completely and irreversibly;
- its abiotic environment can be damaged irreversibly;
- insurmountable barriers can develop so that a natural return of certain species is almost
impossible;
- the disappearance of one or more species can cause a chain reaction, causing
dependent species to disappear as well.
It is of course true that extinction of species has always been a fact of life, but for millions
of years most of these have occurred by natural processes. Today, the rate of extinction
has risen in an alarming way as a direct or indirect result of human activity. This humaninduced rate of extinction is estimated to be thousands of times higher than the natural
`background' rate throughout the previous history of evolution.
Such risks should be avoided especially with rare and/or endangered species, biotopes
11
and ecosystems for which we bear special responsibility, for example those found only
within the European Union's territory.
3.1.6
The "stock of nature", by which we mean its biodiversity in ecological terms,
should not be changed irreversibly by human action. If some risks must be taken at a local
level, these would only be acceptable if either regeneration or some form of replacement is
feasible. The threshold is to avoid the extinction of endangered species or the total
annihilation of rare biotopes and ecosystems.
3.2 Sustainability – an Approach from Political Economy
"Our type of growth- and economy-oriented society is going through an overall crisis,
whose main cause seems to be the rampant growth of the economy – both in real and
intellectual terms. Like a cancer, the growth economy has devoured the historicallytransmitted free space of human beings, social life and nature. There, after transgressing
certain threshold values of sustainability, the economy has caused comprehensive
damage. And during this process economic theory has no inbuilt warning lamps to
indicate any necessary restraints upon economic growth – restraints that have to be
4
oriented towards human, social and ecological criteria."
3.2.1
Sustainability can be interpreted in the following very general way. The
opportunities for either present or future generations to live well should not be reduced by
our current economic development. But we have to fulfil this duty not to compromise the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs, at the same time as we have to meet
the needs of the present generation. The opportunities of future generations can only be
guaranteed if the present generation does not deplete the stock of nature (taken in its
widest sense, including natural resources), but rather preserves and maintains it. This
means that the economic system must learn to live on its revenues. Such goals can only
be reached on certain conditions, namely:
- renewable resources are used only at a rate within which they can be renewed;
- non-renewable resources are used only up to the extent to which they can be substituted
in the future;
- production and consumption do not overstrain the resilience of ecosystems or the
assimilation capacity of the ecosphere. Assimilation capacity is the ability of the
5
ecosystem to degrade, absorb, buffer or store emission products.
3.2.2
This will only be possible if two different strategies guide any development of
future economic policy:
- Developing energy-efficient modes of development. In the energy sphere, the notion of
"energy sufficiency" means not wasting scarce resources of energy. The term "efficiency
revolution" applies this idea to a much wider context. It represents a strategy in which all
human made systems, like the economic system, have to be re-organised in order to
emulate natural ecosystems. A mature ecosystem like a rain forest gains in complexity as
it matures. The "outputs" of one organism are used as "inputs" by another. This
4
Christian Leipert (1986): "Ist humaner Wohlstand möglich?" in Universitas Vol.41 No.11, pp.11091121. Quotation from p.1111.
5
See Stefan Bringezu/Friedrich Hinterberger/Helmut Schütz, 1994: "Integrating Sustainability into the
System of National Accounts: The Case of Inter-Regional Material Flows". Paper presented to the
Symposium "Models of Sustainable Development", AFCET, Paris.
12
ecosystem as a whole produces less waste and uses energy more efficiently as it
develops. That should be the goal of a human made economic system also! Human
societies, particularly those in the so-called "developed" world, seem to go in exactly the
opposite direction.
Developing new concepts of wealth and welfare. Even if such an efficiency
transformation does not take place, it is evident that the lifestyle of the western
industrialised countries cannot be "globalised". It will be necessary, therefore, for western
societies to develop and discuss new concepts of economic welfare. Measurements like
the Gross National Product increasingly set wrong incentives for economic policy.
Consequently, national accounting systems need to be changed in such a way that
indicators for (social) wealth will now take into account the effects of economic activities on
the sustainability of the system as a whole.
3.2.3
The goal of sustainable development is not only to conserve the natural
environment for successive generations. We have to learn that this will not be possible
without the alleviation of mass poverty and impoverishment, without aspiring to social
justice for all the world's people, and without creating greater government and business
accountability. It will not be enough that countries successfully make the tremendously
difficult transition to "energy efficient" economies. Sustainable development also needs
social systems that are based on justice and equity, and that are built upon democratically
6
controlled political structures, which give people a voice and a stake in their own future.
6
See platform of the 21st World Conference of the Society for International Development, "People's
Rights and Security ² Sustainable Development Strategies for the 21st Century", Mexico City, 6-9 April 1994.
13
IV Obstacles in Translating Concepts of Sustainable
Development into Economic Policy. The Need for Dialogue
There is a big gap between the "real" economic system today and the criteria that have to
be derived from these theoretical approaches to sustainability. It is so large that there is a
great danger that such criteria will not gain any influence on day-to-day economic policy.
Many of the negative external effects of economic activities will be visible only after rather
a long period of time.
Two categories of obstacle should be mentioned in this respect :
7
4.1 Cultural and Ideological Factors
These are what give the economic model its legitimation, and include:
- a narrow-minded belief in progress (which is predominantly of a material and technical
character);
- a narrow, anthropocentric view of nature which is leading to a spirit of "activism and
exploitation";
- a specific ethical attitude which is strongly oriented to utilitarianism;
- a strong belief in the virtues of the free market and its ability automatically to resolve
social problems;
- a growing isolation of industrial societies from nature and from the functioning of natural
ecosystems.
4.2 "Institutional" Factors
These include "the market", political decision-makers and civil society.
Some of the imperfections of the market are themselves causing environmental damage.
Examples of this are the failure to integrate external elements into the price systems, the
gearing of costs to the short term, and so on. As has been mentioned earlier,
measurements like the Gross National Product are setting wrong incentives for an
economic policy. These need to become more in line with the requirements and
implications of sustainability.
Lip service is paid to the notion of changing the economic system towards the goal of
sustainability but policy makers do not react fast enough or with sufficient determination.
Nobody dares to take the initiative of making "first steps", out of the fear of losing
competitiveness. The result is "concern without commitment".
Civil society has an ambivalent attitude towards the issue. Many people and organisations
take material benefit from the situation and have therefore vested interests in the status
quo.
7
Johannes Opschoor, "Use and Abuse of Creation: Ecumenism and Ecology Tomorrow", in The
Ecumenical Movement Tomorrow (Ed. Marc Reuver, Geneva, 1993).
14
4.3 Institutional Factors of the European Union
Institutional factors play a role here as well. The following should be mentioned:
- insufficient possibilities at the political decision-making level of the European Union to
correct the disfunctioning of the market. Fixed standards of the existing directives are not
in line with the desired requirements both with regard to limits and objectives. They are
the result of political compromise.
The decision-making process is slow, the
implementation in the national legislation takes time and the Court cannot judge on its
application;
- insufficient use of instruments which are compatible with the market (e.g. energy tax);
specific economic interests are better organised at the European level than
countervailing powers such as environmental movements;
- insufficient political will and too little pressure from the public, despite all the resistance
and the interest in achieving the necessary changes.
4.4 The Need for Dialogue Between the Policy Makers and the Churches
What does this mean for a working group of churches like our EECCS group, which seeks
to address itself to EU policy in relation to the development of the ecology and living
conditions within EU countries?
One possible starting point could be to develop a catalogue of minimum recommendations
that could be applied to EU policy and policy proposals. These recommendations would
be used to evaluate EU policy in relation to the requirements of sustainability. Such a
catalogue of minimum recommendations could serve as a "vehicle" for a much needed
dialogue between policy makers and our churches, which call upon their members to care
for creation. Furthermore, such a catalogue could serve as a modest attempt to improve
the credibility and authenticity of an economic policy that claims to move our societies in
the direction of sustainability.
4.5 Comment
Free trade without any control leads to the right of the strongest and not to a functioning
market. Interventionism is incapable of producing a functioning market. A functioning
market is, however, essential for sustainable development, as part of a functioning
ecosystem. It implies free movement of goods, services, labour and capital within a
properly controlled framework of rules of behaviour. These rules should seek to exclude
the emergence and exploitation of dominating positions of all kinds, which distort the
functioning of the market and damage the economic, social and ecological components of
our ecosystem.
15
V
Some Problem Areas that Could be Covered in a
"Catalogue of Minimum Recommendations"
8
Drawing upon the previous chapters an attempt will be made in this chapter to formulate
some guiding principles in restructuring our policies towards sustainable development. To
put these principles into practice it will be necessary to take appropriate action in both
general and special sector policies.
5.1 Some Guiding Principles
5.1.1
No country can achieve true development if it continues to erode its natural
environment or its resource base.
5.1.2
There are upper limits to the quantitative growth of our economy; it may well be
that in the rich countries these upper limits have already been reached. In contrast, the
poor countries have a backlog of demand.
5.1.3
Within the next ten to fifteen years, both our current levels of pollution and the
excessive use of non-renewable natural resources, must be reduced drastically, especially
the fossil fuels. The requirement to reach this goal is first and foremost the duty of the rich
nations, including the EU member states. This timescale is very short if we compare what
we have achieved in the last ten to fifteen years with the magnitude of the tasks which are
before us.
5.1.4
There is increasing evidence, especially in rich countries, that although people
today pass on good things to our descendants, we also live at their expense. Not only do
we live at the expense of future generations in the "North", but we are already living at the
expense of the present generations in the "South" of our world today.
These guiding principles will be referred to in the case studies that follow in this text.
5.2 Forging New Alliances
The restructuring of the economy towards sustainable development is not only an aim to
be delegated to "the state" or "politics" or "business"; it is at least as much a social
challenge. It affects everyone – industry, trade unions, environmental agencies, the
churches and above all consumers. Social innovation is required to deal with these
problems in a civil way rather than by command and control. This means rethinking both
the coalitions and areas of confrontation that we have become used to. For example, the
conscientious consumer would not automatically want to buy goods from cut price
suppliers who ignore ecological aspects. It is certainly possible for the trade unions'
interest in job security and the environmentalists' demands for ecological transformation to
join forces if society can no longer accept a specific product, as was the case of CSCs. It
is obvious that we can only have a policy for stabilising the global climate in partnership
8
This list is by no means complete or exhaustive and should be regarded only as a first contribution for
discussion. For the following see Hans Diefenbacher (1992): "Global Interactions and Sustainable
Development ² Some Remarks towards a Framework for Analysis", in Johan B. Opschoor (ed):
Environment, Economy and Sustainable Development, Groningen, Wolters Noordhoff, pp.73-92.
16
with the poorer nations if their legitimate development interests are respected alongside
the ecological requirements. This means that climate protection policy can only be
conceived of in cooperation with the developing countries, or else it is bound to fail. We
should encourage social innovations which break down antiquated structures and allow
ecological thinking to penetrate at all levels of society, so making an important contribution
to achieving the ecological change which is needed.
5.3 Reduction of Working Hours and Upper Limits to Real Wages
By now, there is enough evidence that economic growth of the traditional quantitative type
is neither a solution for the unemployment problem nor a suitable method for financing the
9
repair of environmental damage, if this can be done at all. Peter Studer compared this
policy with the bizarre idea to promote smoking in order to get higher tax yields, to be able
to invest more money into equipment to fight lung cancer. This means that the pressure
for continuing growth must be removed from the system which is currently making
decisions over economic allocations. In industrialised countries, it must be made more
difficult to achieve quantitative growth. In no industrial nation is there a state of affairs
which could be transferred to all other parts of the world. On the contrary, the turnover in
materials and energy consumption of the rich growth economies, if globalised, would lead
to a collapse of the ecological system of the Earth within a few decades.
For the reasons given, the continuing increase in labour productivity cannot be
transformed into traditional economic growth strategies. Consequently there is no way to
avoid a further noticeable reduction of average working hours. These reductions should
match the level of the increase of labour productivity. Within this limit, a reduction of
working hours would be possible without wage cuts. But we have to take unemployment
into consideration. We have therefore to modify this to a pragmatic suggestion. As long
as unemployment is a problem, wage increases should be only the size of the inflation
rate, combined with a reduction of working hours at the average level of the increase of
labour productivity. Such a scheme must be supported by a guaranteed basic income as
a general foundation for social security.
5.4 An Ecological Re-orientation of the Tax System
There is now a far-reaching consensus that the external effects of economic systems a)
cross national boundaries; b) will affect future generations; and cannot be "cured" by free
market forces alone.
Many different methods for internalising external effects are under discussion. One idea is
to use the economic adjustment capacity of the tax system for the promotion of ecological
10
aims . A pragmatic suggestion is to combine an energy tax for business firms with
allowances for wage payments. In Germany, employers have to pay 50% of their
employees' social security. This part could be taken over by the energy tax. Such a tax
Peter Studer (1991): "Die Marktwirtschaft der Zukunft ²
Selbstorganisierten System", Discussion paper, University of St Gallen.
9
vom
Selbstwuchernden
zum
10
See Frankfurter Rundschau, 12.11.1988 for a general overview; also Hans Christoph
Binswanger/Heinz Frisch / Hans Nutzinger (1988): "Arbeit ohne Umweltzerstörung", 2nd ed., Frankfurt;
S.Fischer and Hans Nutzinger/Angelica Zahrnt (1989): "Öko-Steuern. Umweltsteuern und Abgaben in der
Diskussion", Karlsruhe, C.F.Müller.
17
would offer an incentive to increase employment, and at the same time would promote
energy conservation.
On the other hand, there are other tasks for an ecological re-orientation of the tax system
that will require additional tax yields. An energy tax could be used to establish a fund from
which to finance selective measures for ecologically acceptable development in
developing countries. This could be considered as a type of "reparation tax", the amount
of which could, for example, depend on the accumulated emissions over past decades
from the rich countries.
5.5 Special Sector Policies
We have assessed the European Union's "Community Programme of Policy and Action in
Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development" in the light of the way in which
sustainable development has been discussed in the preceding chapters. We have
identified three policy sectors that are especially sensitive in developing a strategy for
sustainable development. These are energy, transport, and international trade. Some of
these sectors will have to shrink, while other must grow if our economy is to be
restructured towards sustainable development.
After making some introductory
observations here, these special sector policies will be explored further in the following
chapters, in the form of case studies.
The energy sector is one of the most important and it impacts on all other sectors. A
policy of restructuring towards sustainable development has to formulate at least the basic
elements of a new energy policy, which necessarily must include consideration of the
global dimensions of this problem. Energy policy must be guided consistently by the
principles of minimising risk both to the environment and to human health and safety, and
of energy efficiency. Such an energy policy should be supply-led and not demand-led in
its basic characteristics. A case study on the energy sector follows as Chapter VI.
An ecological "conversion" is required in the area of transportation. Transportation in
industrial societies is far from being a model for global development. From now on, road
traffic must as far as possible be (in order of preference): avoided, relocated, slowed
down, and technically optimised. A case study on transport forms our Chapter VII.
The list of sensitive sectors should also include the chemical industry and agriculture. Our
present working group has not been in a position to address by means of detailed case
studies, but we offer the following brief observations on these two sectors.
In the chemical industry, the policy changes that are needed relate not only to the
emissions but also to the products themselves. Some change is already taking place but
what is really needed is nothing less than an entirely different way of looking at chemical
production. The greatest "emissions" of the chemical industry are in fact its products.
Ecological criticism of the chemical industry has concentrated on chlorine compounds and
the use of agricultural biocides, whose products not only damage the atmosphere but also
the land, ground water, flora, fauna and finally mankind itself. A more complete view of
ecology, which is not reduced simply to the reduction of emissions, must lead to the
conclusion that some of these products should be abandoned as soon as possible. If the
chemical industry wants to achieve long-term social acceptance it will have to be more
open to such approaches as the ecological analysis of product lines, and the evaluation of
18
environmental and technical consequences through life cycle analysis and other
assessment methods.
Agricultural policy is also an indispensable element contributing to sustainable
development. A change in the ecological structure of the agriculture of the industrial
nations is necessary to prevent ecological collapse. Overdoses of chemical pesticides and
fertilizers in the ground water, erosion of the land, monotony of the landscape and the
extinction of species are all reason enough for a change of course to be indicated. To stop
the process of agricultural industrialisation it might be necessary to:
- determine stock limits for farm animals in relation to the grazing area available;
- tighten up agricultural environmental protection regulations;
- ban the production and the export of certain pesticides;
- promote ecological farming;
- discourage the use of artificial fertilizers, chemical pesticides and importing animal
fodder.
The introduction by industrial nations of agricultural methods that are in accordance with
nature would have a positive influence on the developing countries. The cultivation of
"cash crops", meant exclusively for the export market, often extract a high price in land
erosion and deforestation. If this compulsory integration into the world market could be
eliminated and other farming alternatives were offered in its place, forms of cultivation that
are compatible with nature may have a chance in the developing countries also.
5.6 Re-definition of Development Cooperation Policy
We have argued that the greatest responsibility for the unsustainable development of the
global economy lies within the industrialised countries. As a consequence, a re-definition
of development cooperation policy must aim at structural changes in both the world
economy and in the economic behaviour of the industrialised countries. Seen in this way,
development policy should lobby for the rights of the poor countries within industrialised
countries. To the principles we spelt out in section 3.1 we would therefore now add a third:
The Equity Principle
This states that as increasing numbers of poor people put pressure on finite resources, we
cannot go on maintaining "rich world" enclaves at their expense. Environmental measures
should not be at the expense of the poorest people, but sustainable development should
rather serve increasing their dignity and prosperity.
To strengthen the influence of development cooperation policy it is necessary to link policy
decisions that influence economic and ecological systems – in other words, to stop the
separation of these policy areas at the decision-making level. It might be necessary to
assign to the government department responsible for development policy a right to
participate in the formulation of the guidelines for economic and financial policy, and
maybe even the right to veto certain government decisions concerning agricultural or trade
policy.
Some suggestions for restructuring global economic interactions in order to facilitate
sustainable development have been listed more often. The EU should immediately stop
subventions of agrarian exports to developing countries. The industrial countries should
19
feel responsible for the economic misery of mono-cultures that go back to colonial times
but which are not needed any longer – like the jute or sisal production. These rich
countries should consider the concerns of the poorer countries, especially regarding the
trade-related aspects of intellectual property and investment measures. Again, we are
faced with a problem of the rich countries – their inability to see that in the long run it would
be better for them to invest into a more just and participatory world economic order.
20
VI Case Study 1: Energy and Sustainable Development
6.1 Introduction
Energy is one of the cornerstones of the European economy. Its production, use and
conservation are vital factors in national and Community life at every level of society. But
energy also causes some of the heaviest damage to the environment, and thus represents
one of the biggest challenges facing a European strategy for sustainable development. In
11
"Energy in Europe – a View to the Future" , the EU has highlighted this dilemma by posing
the leading question: "How to get on to a sustainable growth path that reconciles the social
and economic aspirations of the world's peoples for higher welfare, while at the same time
meeting concern for a cleaner environment and avoiding the dangers of global warming."
This chapter explores some of the tensions involved. It examines ways in which the
challenge of developing a sustainable energy policy for Europe might be met, when
viewed in the light of environmental, economic and ethical considerations, and to apply the
discussion of most appropriate economic models in the preceding chapters.
6.1.1
Energy: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Good
During the last hundred years there has been a remarkable increase in the availability of
abundant, cheap energy. This has brought many benefits in personal standards of living.
It has revolutionised heating and lighting in the home and at work. It has provided a vast
range of electrical appliances and electronic means of communication, and transformed
the possibilities for transport in terms of speed, distance, and availability, and also in
personal mobility. As much as any of these, energy availability has made possible an
unprecedented scale of industrial and technological developments.
The Bad
Although the benefits of energy are enormous, each energy technology has its risks and
drawbacks. The benefits have led to a huge increase in energy consumption across the
world, primarily by fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – but also by nuclear and hydroelectric
12
power (fig.1) . There is now increasing concern about the negative effects of energy use
on such a scale, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels, in addition to the more
publicised risks associated with nuclear energy. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio highlighted
many problems with the increased use of fossil fuels, including global warming, acid rain,
urban pollution, especially from vehicle emissions, and damage to human health and
communities, in addition to the rapid rate of depletion of the available resources.
The Ugly
Energy resources are not fairly available across the world. In 1990, the rich 25% of the
world used over two thirds of its energy. We in the "North" are doing this at a grossly
11
"Energy in Europe ² a View to the Future", EU 1992, ISBN 92-826-3665-8.
12
Sir F. Layfield, Christian Action Journal, Winter 1993, 3-5.
21
13
unsustainable rate, which could not be reproduced globally.
The sharing of energy
technologies with the developing world has been slow and often done in an inappropriate
way. Moreover, there is inequity not only in use and development of energy, but also in
the structures of the energy system. Oil is currently the prime commodity but is only
produced by some countries, and the volatility of the oil market is a source of instability,
which tends to hit developing nations the hardest. The economic and strategic value of
energy resources has led to tension and conflict between nations, as evident for example
in the Gulf War. As oil and gas stocks dwindle in the future, there is a real possibility of
further energy-related conflicts.
6.1.2
Energy Consumption and Resources
Fig.1 has drawn attention to the rapid acceleration in world energy consumption over the
last 50 years. It is notoriously difficult to estimate future patterns, as these are dependent
on many unpredictable factors, such as world population growth, the effects of warfare,
variations in national economies and energy demands, but the increasing pattern seems to
be continuing. Current trends predict that the world demand energy is likely to grow by 5014
150% by the year 2050. Much of this increase is expected to come not from Europe but
from Asia, Latin America and the rest of the developing world, and it is generally assumed
that this would be met primarily by increased use of fossil fuels, especially of coal. In
Europe, energy use has declined in industry, especially in Eastern Europe, but in the EU
this is offset by a comparable growth in consumption in the commercial and transport
sectors, which looks set to continue.
Europe follows the global pattern of energy use dominated by the fossil fuels. Figure 2
shows that in 1992, 85% of EU energy came from fossil fuels, with oil 44%, coal 21% and
gas 19%. Nuclear energy (14%) is also significant in the EU but there was little use of
15
renewable energy sources. Oil is the principal energy source in most member states, but
otherwise the use of the different sources varies greatly among them. For example, in
Sweden at present nuclear energy is the largest source, in the Netherlands gas
dominates, and several countries use a lot of coal.
These factors raise very serious questions about sustainability of the fossil fuel resources
for growth on this scale, since coal, oil and natural gas are all finite and non-renewable.
Although this appreciation continues to drive more ingenious attempts to discover and
extract resources which are currently only marginal, there will eventually be some limit
where absolute scarcity begins to impinge on world affairs. Again, it is very difficult to
predict when this might occur, since estimating resource depletion is as speculative as
estimating demand. Prudent guesses might be half way through the 21st century for oil
and gas, and in the 23rd century for coal and lignite. But come it certainly will!
Against this background, Western Europe has a vulnerable supply position, and this is
seen by the EU as a dominant context for planning energy policy. The UK, the
Netherlands and Norway are its only major oil and gas producers, and Germany and the
UK are the main coal producers. All other countries rely heavily on imports of fossil fuels.
This reliance on external supplies will widen as the relatively small European fossil
resources are used up.
13
L. Roberts, in Christian Action Journal, Winter 1993.
14
EU prediction of growth from 8 Gton to 13-20 Gton by 2050.
15
European energy data are derived from Eurostat and OECD statistics.
22
This assessment of resources has simply considered demand-led assumptions,
extrapolating from present trends. Its clear implication is that our present pattern of energy
use, so dominated by fossil fuels in general, and oil in particular, cannot be sustained
beyond the middle of the next century, for the world as a whole, or Europe in particular. In
energy as with the area of transport, the assumption of "sustainable development" in terms
of sustained increase must now be challenged. The vulnerable energy position for Europe
would be progressively decreased if both a sustained reduction of energy use and a
determined switch towards indigenous renewable resources were introduced at this point
into EU energy policy. In this way, an environmentally more sustainable energy system
would also be a more secure one from a resource point of view.
6.1.3
The Impact of Fossil Fuels on the Environment
Fossil fuels are our major source of energy, but they are also one of the greatest causes of
damage both to environment and to health and safety, partly by their nature but mostly
because of the sheer scale on which we are now using them. The extraction and
processing of coal, oil and gas all result in significant pollution and other environmental
impacts, as well as presenting both occupational and public risks to health and safety.
The leakage of methane from gas pipelines and during extractions may be contributing to
global warming. The transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas has caused serious
marine pollution. The most serious environmental damage from fossil fuels, however,
comes from the atmospheric emissions which result from burning them. These can be
divided into two main effects – acid gases and carbon dioxide.
The range of conventional pollutants includes the acid gases (sulphur dioxide SO2 and the
oxides of nitrogen NOx), volatile organic compounds, airborne particulate, some radioactive
compounds and other toxic wastes. Coal and oil produce significantly more of these
pollutants than natural gas. The environmental impacts include the acidification of lakes
and soil, damage to trees, and urban atmospheric pollution, leading to a range of human
health risks and also damage to buildings. It has become a particularly serious cause of
urban pollution, reversing improvements brought about by clean air legislation a
generation ago.
The biggest waste product from burning fossil fuels is, however, carbon dioxide CO2. Its
progressive accumulation in the atmosphere is the major contributory factor to the risk of
global warming, which threatens not just one locality but the whole earth. Although it will
still take some time to confirm the link between the two, projections by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 point to a mean global temperature
16
rise of 1.6-4.0ΕC by the year 2100. The social and environmental consequences of such
climatic changes would be so serious that it is widely agreed that this is a case for applying
the "precautionary principle": that we cannot afford to wait for "final" confirmation before
taking concerted action.
The main predicted consequences are increased storms, desertification and the rapid shift
of prime staple crop lands further to the poles, and a rise in sea level which could inundate
many highly populated low lying areas and much agricultural land. The indications are that
the developing countries, which currently produce a smaller proportion of the emissions,
16
International Panel on Climate Change 1992 projections for CO2 emission.
23
are likely to suffer the worst of these effects, and would be least able to afford either
defensive measures or the increased costs of food in times of shortage. This creates a
morally indefensible situation that many countries who are least responsible are those
most likely to suffer the results of the excessive emissions of Europe and the developed
world.
There is also a significant time lag between actions we take today and their effect in
decreasing or increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" in the
atmosphere, and then to any climatic and other changes which may result. The upper
curve of figure 3 shows the projections of future CO2 emissions if continued at the current
rate, and the lower curve estimates the effect of massive intervention to reduce CO2
emissions. But even if drastic action were taken to reduce emissions progressively from
now until 2050, this would not stop the damage which our present emissions will cause
over the next few decades.
It is therefore of concern and frustration that in Berlin in April 1995, the first conference of
the parties which signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change failed to
agree to any substantial CO2 reductions for the period beyond 2000. The "Berlin Mandate"
to begin a two year period of negotiation does not represent a commitment consistent with
the expectations which the citizens of the EU would expect following the original
convention of Rio 1992. This is in striking contrast to the progress made at an
international level on reducing CFC emissions. It sends the wrong signal that the
governers of industrialised nations are not sufficiently serious to justify individuals and
business taking action themselves to reduce emissions and save energy. We are
concerned that the just case of the Alliance of Small Island states is being marginalised,
and urge moving towards the Toronto target of a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005.
6.2 Criteria for a Sustainable Energy Policy
It is important to recognise at the outset that the way we might develop a sustainable
energy policy depends greatly on which criteria we choose as our priorities. In practice,
when we think about energy policy – whether as experts or the general public – we use a
wide range of criteria, each of which focuses on our different contexts, priorities and views
of the world. For example, the priorities of the manager of a power generation utility, a
safety inspector and a local resident may all be very different. We have listed below a
selection of some of the common criteria which different people and groups regard as
important for setting an energy policy. Some of these work towards sustainable
development; some arguably work against it.
* national economic growth
* sustainability in terms of resources,
economy, population or environment
* profit margins/keeping market share
* minimising the health and safety impact
* preventing or reducing unemployment
* minimising the environmental impact
* minimising public expenditure
* overcoming domestic "fuel poverty"
* potential of a policy to gain or lose * minimising perceived risks to which the
political support
public seem to be especially averse
* maintaining a secure energy supply
24
* fairness with respect to the Third World
* using the cheapest energy resources
* using indigenous energy resources
* centralised energy production
* localised energy production
* NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
* common sharing of both the benefits
and the costs of a national resource
It is clear that there is a great variety of possible criteria, and that many conflicts of
priorities arise. For example, the criterion of profit margins may conflict with safety or
environmental impact. Economic growth and security of supply may be at odds with
sustainability. There can also be conflicts within one criterion. For example, measures to
reduce one environmental impact may make another impact worse. Part of assessing
what is a sustainable energy policy is to find ways of resolution where fundamental
conflicts arise. This is not an easy matter.
Clearly, a sustainable energy policy must seek to find a balance among the various needs
and aspirations which these different criteria reflect. It is also important to be aware that
one's own priorities may not be the only legitimate ones. Over the last 20 years, "NIMBY"
has come to prominence as an expression of objection. On the one hand, it can represent
legitimate local concern about the imposition of some proposed development in their area.
What is of more concern is that it has also become a general expression of a more selfish
and individualistic attitude that wishes to have the benefit of the energy but insists that any
disadvantages are suffered by someone else. From a Christian perspective, this is just as
wrong as for those with the power simply to impose a scheme without any redress.
Instead, we would stress the importance of recognising that all energy sources inevitably
carry risks and disbenefits, and that any one risk is likely to fall more on some than on
others. But in so far as some disadvantages of a common good such as energy are
unavoidable, a civil society must ensure that they are shared fairly amongst its citizens, as
far as possible.
A sustainable energy system needs "sustainable" energy sources. In the light of these
criteria, we propose below some ways by which to identify what would be sustainable
energy sources.
* Sources where there is no danger of approaching the resource limit in the medium term
(which would not necessarily rule out non-renewable sources);
* Sources where the health and safety risks can be regulated to an acceptable level;
* Sources whose environmental impact can be carried by their environment;
* Sources whose wastes are minimal or which could be recycled;
* Sources which are efficient at the point of delivery, for example in domestic heating;
* Sources capable of supporting the economic productivity aimed at by a nation, but which
do not aggravate trends towards an energy and economic underclass;
* Sources which do not impoverish the developing world, but rather set an example of
what the West thinks the goals should be for a country with aspirations to
"development".
25
6.2.1
Criteria Emphasised in the EU's Current Energy Strategy
Before considering how such criteria might be worked out in a sustainable energy policy
for Europe, we note which ones the EU have focused on. Since energy policy is highly
diverse among the Member States, the EU sees its role as defining a framework within
which each country can opt for the system best suited to its natural resources. To provide
this framework, the EU has focused on three fundamental aims:
* to develop a free and competitive internal energy market;
* to develop external energy relations to ensure security of supply;
* to minimise the negative impact of energy use and production on the environment.
The EU has set up various programmes in support. SYNERGY is making co-operation
initiatives with developing and Eastern European nations to help meet security of supply.
The environmental goal is expressed primarily in reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by
2000, supported by the SAVE energy efficiency programme, ALTENER (promoting
renewable energy sources), and THERMIE (supporting a broad range of innovative
projects).
6.2.2
Problem of Conflicting Criteria and the EU Energy Market
These programmes mark some positive steps, but it can be argued that there are conflicts
amongst their goals. The market model is likely to stimulate a more consumptive energy
climate, which would be at odds with the third goal, in which the importance of saving
energy is stressed. In Chapter V, we state that the ecological paradigm should have much
more prominence in setting the context for the market to operate. Although the market is
intended to provide the opportunity for large users to purchase energy as competitively as
possible from across the EU, especially gas and electricity, it is far from free. With much
government intervention the energy market is highly distorted, and in practice a few large
enterprises dominate the energy field.
Another conflict is reflected by the failure of the EU framework to address adequately how
the undoubted potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy development would be
fulfilled in an energy market which is based on cheap fossil fuels. It is widely believed that
the current prices do not reflect the environmental damage these fuels are causing, and
that if we paid environmentally realistic prices for fossil fuels, renewable energy
technologies would become much more economically competitive.
The failure to implement the controversial carbon/energy tax is indicative of the conflict of
interests in the policy. The tax has obvious advantages in its aim of shifting demand away
from the most polluting fuels, but it has been opposed on the grounds of the danger of
losing industrial competitiveness abroad. There are, of course, other problems. It is vital
that due account is taken of the social consequences, in order to ensure that the poor and
elderly sections of the population do not end up bearing most of the cost. As presently
conceived, it would also penalise hydro and nuclear power, both of which reduce
dependence on fossil fuels. Such problems are difficult, but they would not seem to be
irresolvable. The urgent need is for the political will within the EU to address their
resolution, as a major step towards fulfilling the third of its three fundamental aims.
26
6.3 Sustainable Energy for Europe
6.3.1
The Moral Burden on Europe to Change
We have assessed Europe's energy supply in its global environmental perspective and
considered what the broad criteria for a sustainable energy policy should be. We have
noted the current EU framework and the shortcomings of the market. From this it seems
clear that there is a moral imperative that European energy policy needs to be redirected.
At present:
* It is causing damage to the environment out of all proportion to Europe's share of the
earth's population, land area and resources, especially by acid pollution and global
warming.
* As Europe's indigenous fossil fuel supplies become depleted, increasing dependence is
placed on using resources imported from other parts of the earth, with attendant risks and
tensions.
It is also clear that the current pattern and rate of global consumption of fossil fuels cannot
be sustained indefinitely from the finite and diminishing supplies. As a result, Europe
carries a responsibility within the wider global community to see that energy resources are
fairly shared. Against this background, current European levels of energy consumption
are unjust because:
* They are not shared fairly even among all citizens in Europe, where "fuel poverty"
remains a serious societal blight in many countries.
* They are simply unachievable by most of the developing world, and if they were, the
impact on the global environment would be catastrophic.
Most of the projected increase in future global energy demand is expected from the
developing world. Even the more modest projections will mean that our depletion of
energy resources, and our damage to the environment and to the health and safety, will
get much worse. These factors place a twofold moral burden on Europe:
* to reduce its energy demand, since it possesses the technology and the infrastructure
to do so in a way which the developing world does not, and
* to put a strong emphasis on sharing its best practice and experience of efficient,
renewable and sustainable energy use with the developing world.
Two overall conclusions emerge, which are addressed in turn in the next two sections:
* Europe is using far too much energy per capita to be sustainable, given that its major
source is the non-renewable, heavily polluting fossil fuels;
* Europe has far too great dependence on fossil fuels, especially as it has the
technological resources to develop other energy forms.
6.3.2
Sustainable Energy for Europe – How do we Save Energy?
The 1992 Earth Summit highlighted the need for all nations to consider the sustainable use
of energy and emphasised the need to focus on the long-term effects on the planet rather
than the exhaustion of resources. The first and most pressing need is simply to use and
waste less energy, by adopting energy efficiency measures. This consists not of a few big
changes but a myriad of small steps taken in all sectors – individuals, small and large
27
businesses, government and public bodies. In practice, it often proves difficult to motivate
people or organisations. This is partly through a basic lack of awareness about our
wastage of energy. It is partly because energy is often a relatively small part of a domestic
or a company budget, so there is not an immediate economic incentive to change. There
is also an aversion to investing capital in energy saving equipment if it takes more than
about two years to pay back.
There are structural reasons in our economic and social life which do not favour energy
efficiency. We have made consumption one of the main paradigms of European society.
Industry is geared to making products which satisfy that consumptive way of life, and there
are powerful vested interests in keeping it fuelled. The advertising industry stimulates us
day after day to consume rather than to conserve. The prevailing market economic
climate does not encourage energy efficiency, where fossil fuel prices are so low that it
seems cheaper to go on burning more fuel than it is to use it more efficiently.
The wider adoption of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes is an efficiency
measure requiring greater EU support. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is very
inefficient. CHP counteracts this by tapping waste heat from power stations for district
heating, or using existing combustion processes like waste incineration to generate
electricity. There are practical difficulties of locating the heat and electricity demand in the
same place, and in the costs and upheaval of installing district heating, but the main
barriers are the cheapness of existing fossil fuels and/or grid electricity, and political
barriers of monopoly suppliers.
It is widely agreed that energy efficiency is the most cost effective means to address the
challenge of sustainable energy. The problem is that putting it into practice needs to
overcome many serious economic, institutional, political and cultural barriers before it can
achieve the levels of potential energy saving which are sometimes quoted. In section
6.4.2 we give a series of practical examples, but all of them require major political and
individual will. If we rely only on a voluntary basis, it may well take several generations to
effect the cultural and social changes which are needed to realise the potential of energy
saving, and to alter such fundamental questions as our perception of need. If we require a
faster uptake, it would mean significant changes in our fundamental economic structures,
particularly affecting investment criteria and taxation. It might even require significant
government social intervention. Either would necessarily carry serious political and social
costs. It depends how serious we are about sustainable development.
The churches have an important role to play by example. Church members can take
initiatives in the community. In Scotland and Germany, many churches are also finding
the value in adopting energy efficiency measures in church buildings. Churches have an
important educational role in both issues of lifestyle and in motivation to change for the
good of the world our children will inherit. As Christians, we are especially responsible for
acting on the basis of the knowledge which we have.
6.3.3
Sustainable Energy in Europe – Which Fuel?
6.3.3.1 Addressing the Problems of Fossil Fuels
Since Europe's energy consumption is dominated by fossil fuels, whose environmental
costs have been enumerated above, this is where we must begin. In the short term it is of
great importance to take all reasonable steps to reduce the emissions and other wastes
involved in our current practices, by means of "end of pipe" technologies. These include
28
flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) to remove SO2, and more efficient combustion technology
to reduce NOx and CO2 emissions. It is important, however, not to exaggerate the
effectiveness of these technical fixes, or to think that when we have done such measures,
we have done all we need to do to produce "clean power". None of them will do more than
make fossil fuel energy somewhat less polluting. Indeed, reducing one environmental
impact may make others worse. So FGD can substantially cut the SO2 emissions at a
coal-fired power station, but it also produces its own wastes – the limestone-gypsum FGD
process produces large amounts of additional carbon dioxide and gypsum; the alternative
sea water scrubbing method leads to increased sulphate levels in the waste water. FGD
also inevitably lowers the combustion efficiency of the power station, which means that
more CO2 is emitted for every unit of electricity generated.
These are all relative and partial measures, which are not enough in themselves to satisfy
the needs of a sustainable energy policy. To achieve that goal requires a more radical
approach whose major priority is to reduce greatly our overwhelming dependence on
burning fossil fuels. A strategy to address this could include one or more of the following
three options:
* to reduce drastically our overall energy consumption, by energy saving measures;
* to use a greater proportion of nuclear power to displace fossil fuels;
* to develop renewable energy on a large scale to displace fossil fuels.
In practice, each of these options has significant drawbacks. In the previous section we
concluded that in the short to medium term, energy saving is not likely to make the major
inroads into our fossil fuel consumption which a truly sustainable energy policy would
require. Moreover, even were such reductions achieved, we will still probably require quite
large amounts of energy, which cannot be done without also bearing the disadvantages,
no matter what sources of energy we choose.
In the next two sections, we will consider the advantages and disadvantages of the other
two options, assessing to what extent the displacement of fossil fuels by nuclear or
renewable energy would represent appropriate or sufficient responses. In doing so, we
must keep in mind the need to weigh up the relative disadvantages among all the options.
In particular, there is the dilemma of whether it is more important to reduce the risk of
global warming or reduce the risk of radioactive contamination, if measures to combat
either one would lead to an increase in the risk of the other. In this case, the application of
the precautionary principle is not a simple matter. We need also to consider how realistic
it is to think of using renewable energy on a scale which would be to represent a realistic
alternative to either fossil or nuclear energy, and to be frank about what disadvantages
even renewable energies may carry if used on such a scale.
6.3.2.2 Is Nuclear Energy a Viable Alternative or Not?
This is by far the most controversial measure which might be considered. It is important
because nuclear energy is already producing a third of Europe's electricity and, by
comparison with fossil fuel electricity, produces minimal acid pollution or emissions of CO2.
Uranium is not a renewable fuel but the potential energy of its reserves is large – perhaps
equivalent to global coal reserves. Nuclear energy does not suffer the limitation of
intermittency like some renewable resources, e.g. wind. As we are all aware, however,
there are also serious drawbacks with nuclear energy. There are risks associated with
uranium mining, and occupational risks to the workforce of a nuclear facility. These have
29
been assessed as roughly comparable to those encountered in the fossil fuel industries.
But the main problems, as commonly perceived, are:
* the risk of damage to human health, social stability and the biosphere resulting from
widespread contamination, in the event of a serious accident;
* the management of long-lived radioactive wastes for generations to come;
* the risk of release or contamination from the concentration and handling of radioactive
material, should reprocessing be implemented;
* the diversion of nuclear material for military use;
* that nuclear facilities might pose visible targets for terrorist attack or in a case of
warfare.
Given the fact that we already have significant quantities of nuclear waste which need to
be managed in the very long term, neither pursuing nor phasing out nuclear power would
make a great difference to the principal issue of the need to store safely; it would primarily
simply affect the scale of storage required.
On the basis of economies of scale, the trend in electricity supply systems based on fossil
fuel has long been one of centralisation to fewer and larger units. Nuclear power is by its
nature a highly centralised system of generating electricity. Some argue that this
represents a step in the wrong direction, is sustainable energy is seen in terms of more
localised and small scale ways of generating and using energy, whereas many forms of
renewable energy are especially well suited to a decentralised approach. Others argue
the opposite way – that to concentrate the major energy demand from cities and large
industrial installations on a few large facilities has a lower net impact on a society and on
the environment. The main issue is one of infrastructure, and it is also shared with some
of the renewables, notably large scale hydro, tidal and wave energy schemes.
The main environmental and safety problems of nuclear power are primarily associated
with risk of what might go wrong in the case of a future accident or leakage. It is important
to note that this is a different sort of question from, say acid pollution from a coal fired
power station, which is the actual damaging which is going on all the time in normal
operation. It is also a different type of risk from global warming, where the uncertainty is
not whether a rare accident may occur, but a temporary scientific uncertainty about
whether the emissions we are producing all the time are actually changing the climate.
For some, these risks inherent in nuclear power are remote and its benefits outweigh the
fears, but for others these concerns are the paramount criterion which rule out nuclear
energy on principle. This is seen in a variety of national and regional policies: for France,
Belgium, Sweden and Scotland it is their largest electricity supplier. Switzerland, Finland,
Germany, England, Wales and Spain are also significant users, but Austria and Denmark
have voted against its use, and Sweden has voted to phase it out. We recognise the
important difference of opinion which exists in Europe, our countries, in the churches and
within our own group.
Nuclear fission energy is not a renewable resource. Like the fossil fuels, uranium cannot
be considered a sustainable energy resource for the very long term, since it would
eventually be in short supply. With the issue of a very long-term supply in mind, the EU
has heavily supported nuclear fusion research. The attractions are that its main fuel
resources are water, which is limitless, and lithium which is extremely abundant, and that,
unlike existing nuclear fission energy, its radioactive wastes are not extremely long-lived.
The EU's JET projects lead the world in the investigation of this potential power source,
30
but it may be 50 years before its practicability in engineering and economic terms has
been demonstrated, one way or the other.
6.3.3.3
How Realistic is the Potential of Renewable Energy?
In contrast to fossil and nuclear fuels, renewable energy offers alternative sources of
energy for the future that will not run out, which in general add little to the pollution and
waste problems caused by fossil fuels, without the risks attendant on nuclear power. The
major sources are:
* hydroelectricity, which is the only source currently used to any great extent in Europe;
* electricity from wind, waves and tides;
* heat from wastes from various natural and man-made sources;
* heat from geothermal reservoirs in the earth's crust;
* energy crops, either for direct combustion or to produce synthetic fuels from biological
systems such as oil seed;
* solar energy, either converted into electricity or used as a heat source, e.g. for hot
water.
Apart from hydro, most of these renewable resources are at a relatively early stage of
development, compared with fossil fuels. This makes it difficult to make accurate
judgments about the scale of their potential. This is reflected in the large variations often
found in published estimates of the amount of energy obtainable from renewables.
Optimistic predictions claim that they could meet as much as 60% of the world's energy
needs. Norway has been able to develop hydro resources on a scale sufficient to produce
over 40% of their energy, but even this is not 100% or even 60%. More cautious
estimates speak of renewables meeting 10-20% of the energy requirements of certain
countries which have significant renewable resources, such as the UK. It is most
important to appreciate what assumptions are being made in such estimates, and whether
they refer to percentages of total energy or just of electricity. The variations depend, in
part, on the criteria applied for what is meant by "potential". Typically there are three
different meanings:
* the maximum theoretical potential – simply based on how big the resource is, before
taking other factors into consideration;
* the accessible potential – considers how much of the resource it is technically possible
to use taking account of only the most basic constraints, e.g. geography, intermittency;
* the realistic potential that is achievable in practical terms allowing for the planning,
economic and social constraints in place or which are likely to prevail.
When the second two are taken into account, the realistic potential of a given renewable
resource may be dramatically lower than its maximum theoretical potential. This must be
borne in mind in assessing the realistic potential for renewables.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a large scope to deploy renewable energy in Europe,
both in natural resources and in the technological expertise to develop it. Before
considering how this may be realised, we must be careful, as with fossil and nuclear
energies, not only to look at the advantages, but also to consider the drawbacks as well.
Some of these are listed below.
31
a) Type of Energy Produced
A large number of the renewable energy sources under development produce electricity
rather than heat or prime fuel. Although we can anticipate some of the switching to
electricity, the greatest long-term need is to replace the direct burning fossil fuels to
provide primary heat or power. Generally, the main renewables which are capable of
meeting this need are biomass and burning waste. These would need to be deployed on a
vast scale to replace our current use of fossil fuels.
b) Renewables as "Dilute" Energy
Renewables are, in general, a much more dilute form of energy than the chemical energy
in fossil fuels and especially than nuclear energy. Consequently, to get an equivalent
amount of renewable electricity produced to, say, a 1000 MW power station needs a large
number of separate installations, for example a very large area of wind generators.
c) Environmental and Safety Impact
Although renewable energy sources are generally thought of as "clean", naturally they all
make some environmental impact. The most familiar example is large hydroelectric dams,
which change the character of the local visual environment, interfere with water courses,
wildlife habitats, and sediment and mineral deposition patterns downstream. Tidal power
has similar problems. Depending on location, dam failure can also present a safety and
environmental risk – like a nuclear accident, rare, but with devastating consequences.
Wind power needs installations in exposed areas which, by their nature, are often areas
associated with beauty. Impacts that are small at the level of a single unit, unlike the noise
of a wind turbine or risk of blades shearing off, can assume significant proportions when
you multiply the number of installations to, say, thousands of units. Offshore wind or wave
power carry the risk associated with major offshore installations. Broadly speaking, the
less energy you have bound up in a resource, the less its impact, but also the less is its
usefulness. Thus, small scale hydro, run-of-river schemes impact minimally, but they also
produce proportionately less electricity.
d) Geographical and Seasonal Factors
Several sources, notably wind, waves, tidal and solar, are either intermittent by nature, or
vary greatly according to time of day or season. Since large scale energy storage
technology is still very difficult, notwithstanding the amount of research resources devoted
to it, this restricts how much we can rely on these sources, for example on a still, freezing
cold, winter's night! Many sources of renewable energy are also limited by geographical
factors (e.g. exposed places for wind, hot rocks within reasonable reach of the surface for
geothermal, mountainous terrain for hydro) and are often remote from the major centres of
demand, requiring extensive power lines.
e) Gaseous Emissions from Heat Producing Renewables
Many of these do not add to the greenhouse effect either because they return the same
CO2 to the atmosphere which had the same biological system had absorbed, or the same
CO2 would have been produced by decay of wastes anyway. But CO2 emissions are still
involved, if our aim is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. In some cases, such as
burning municipal, industrial and some agricultural wastes, care must be taken to minimise
the toxic products being released.
f)
Economic Barriers
After taking account of these disadvantages, we still have a great, and largely untapped,
potential for energy sources, which removes many. The major problem facing renewables
is that of economic barriers. They tend to be capital intensive, so often compare
32
unfavourably in cost terms with existing fossil sources, especially when operating in a
privatised energy market. Open markets tend to favour a fast return on capital which acts
against most renewable energy sources, which are capital intensive, and often still need
significant development work. Another economic barrier which ought to be mentioned is
the unequal distribution of R&D subsidies. Temporary instruments have been introduced
to encourage niche markets for renewables to be developed, but these are generally shortto-medium term only. As such they are insufficient to make the scale of deployment of
renewables which we have concluded is needed. To enable some of the more capital
intensive sources such as tidal or wave power to be exploited, either costs will have to fall
or substantial very long-term subsidies be given.
This raises the problem that renewable sources are viewed by many as competing in an
unfair climate against conventional fossil fuels. One of the benefits of many renewable
energy sources is their low impact on the environment, but this benefit cannot be utilised
economically because the polluting effects of fossil fuels are usually not subject to a
charge. For example, the real cost of fossil fuels should include the environmental impact
of acid rain and global warming, but these are not included in the pricing. Such costs are,
of course, notoriously very difficult to allow for, but the real problem is the political and
economic penalties incurred in imposing them. Not only would fuel bills soar, but trade
would suffer unless other comparable action was taken by international competitors. Yet
without making such a true costing, renewable sources are unlikely to obtain the market
share needed to displace conventional fossil fuel sources, and so begin to address the
second main problem we face in achieving a policy of sustainable energy for Europe.
6.3.4
Conclusions of a Sustainable Energy Supply Policy for Europe
At the beginning of this section we considered three measures which might be taken to
reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in Europe – energy efficiency, nuclear power and
renewables. In reality, none of these three would look likely on its own to make the sort of
change needed, and each of these options has one sort of problem or another. The
answer is found in a combination of measures, with long-term goals, but also some interim
measures which will be less than perfect. By way of example, here are a set of choices
which might be offered, each of which has an important cost in environmental terms:
*
Implement maximum energy efficiency measures by imposing massive social
restrictions, permanent subsidies, etc. While the long-term aim is to reduce energy
consumption, it is sheer utopianism to suggest that this will happen quickly. It may well be
the middle of the next century before a switch to a seriously energy efficient and
renewable energy policy is achievable, and this may still continue to require significant
fossil and/or nuclear energy.
* Cut out nuclear energy entirely, as proposed in Sweden. As technologies stand at
present, however, it is not feasible simply to replace all our nuclear energy by renewables.
There would be a substantial energy shortfall which we would have to make up for with
increased use of coal, oil and gas, making acid pollution and the risk of global warming
much worse.
* Phase out coal, oil and gas electricity generation as far as possible, and replace it by
nuclear, as in France. Note that if renewables do not look likely to be able to replace
European nuclear demand, they would even be less able to displace current fossil fuel
electricity generation. Note also that although nuclear could replace fossil fuelled
electricity generation, it would fall short of meeting all the demand now met by the direct
33
burning of fossil fuels, e.g. transport fuels.
* Undertake immediate deployment of renewable energy supplies on the largest scale
possible, but accept that this may triple our fuel bills. Realistically, the scale of practicable
deployment, taking into account also the infrastructural changes that would be needed,
would not be sufficient to avoid continuing to rely substantially on nuclear and/or fossil fuel
for many years to come. This means accepting a different form of environmental impact
including aesthetics, e.g. from vast numbers of wind farms, while still having the effects of
fossil or nuclear contributions.
The real question is not "what is the policy that will answer all our environmental energy
problems?", but rather "which combination of benefits, costs and risks do we want to
accept?" How we answer this question is vital and urgent, as it will affect our lives and our
environment for generations to come.
6.4 Sustainable Energy in Europe: Ways Forward
There is general agreement that the present patterns of energy consumption across the
world are neither sustainable in terms of resource availability, fair terms of distribution nor
sustainable in terms of the well-being of the environment.
On the specific question of global warming, the continuation of current CO2 emissions has
set a slow fuse burning. Eventually the exhaustion of the fuels themselves would set an
upper limit to this but the damage caused by then could not be borne on any human
ethical criteria. In the short and medium term measures to conserve fossil fuels and lower
the emissions of CO2 are urgently required as contributions to a sustainable energy policy.
In the longer term changes in the operation of the economy and society may be required to
ensure sustainability not just of energy but of human society itself.
6.4.1
Some Immediate Instruments
6.4.1.1 Regulation
Regulation offers the potential of legislating towards a sustainable energy policy. Possible
measures that could be enforced include energy efficient and durability standards for
equipment (both domestic and commercial), modes of transport, and buildings.
6.4.1.2 Financial Incentives
The tax system is an effective way of influencing resource use. The implementation of a
carbon tax provides an incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels. For the tax to have a
significant effect, however, it would need to be set at a high level, possibly as high as
300%. To minimise inflation the tax should be neutral. Revenues raised should be
invested into energy saving measures, used to provide subsidies to those hardest hit by
increased energy prices, and to reduce the non-wage costs of employment.
6.4.1.3 Internalisation of Costs
At present the true cost of many energy supplies are not reflected in the price of energy.
Much publicity was given to the fact that nuclear costings have not always reflected the full
costs of such aspects as research and development and decommissioning. But with fossil
34
fuels the costs of acid rain and potential global warming continue to be largely ignored. If
all such environmental costs were internalised, the high relativity of renewable energy
sources would be greatly reduced or in some cases perhaps reversed. Energy
conservation and waste prevention measures would also become far more economically
attractive.
6.4.1.4 Costing for the Future
Currently energy is priced accordingly to the ability of the small and wealthy proportion of
the world's population who can afford to pay for it. The needs of much of the developing
world and future generations are not reflected in its price. If the price of energy was
restructured to include all present and medium future term markets then the price would
rise significantly. This would lead to a greater emphasis on conservation and a reduction
in waste.
6.4.1.5 Policies Sensitive to the Developing World
In the context of increasing energy consumption in the developing world, Europe has a
moral duty to reduce its energy demand, and especially its fossil fuel consumption, since it
possesses the technology and the infrastructure to do so in a way which the developing
world does not. It should also put a stronger emphasis on sharing its best practice with
efficient, renewable and sustainable energy use with the developing world.
6.4.2
Some Longer-Term Measures
The measures outlined above can slow down the onset of the current crisis, but will not
reverse it. Other measures are needed to ensure a society beyond the next century. The
following are some suggestions:
6.4.2.1 Changes in the Economic Order
The prevailing economic system influences the choices that can be made and the actions
that can be adopted. Some may consider that it is possible to achieve "sustainable
development" by working within the current free market system with some of the tools
outlined above. Others have suggested that the economic system, which is based on
profit and growth, is irrevocably flawed in terms of producing a sustainable energy policy.
In this case there would be a need to change the paradigm that drives our economic
system from the "pursuit of profit and growth" to a set of values that act to empower
people, lower competition between regions and nations, place more emphasis on benefits
and costs which do not currently bear a monetary tag, and work to conserve the earth.
This requires a new morality within the economic order.
6.4.2.2 Changes in Society
Our present western society is organised in such a way as to be heavily centralised and so
wasteful in resource and energy use. By centralising production, the need to transport
commodities increases, which generally adds to environmental impacts.
Future
development should be reoriented and based on policies which lead to energy
conservation, energy efficiency and, while recognising the benefits of a degree of central
facilities, generally realigning the balance towards a more decentralised society.
There are a great many options on a more general level which we could adopt to make
significant savings of energy. Here are just a few of them:
* Adopting simpler lifestyles in terms of energy use, transport, etc. This raises far35
reaching questions about our habits and expectations, as a society and as individuals;
* Challenging the prevailing consumer mentality;
* Using less unnecessary heating and lighting; not demanding the latest energy intensive
appliance;
* Using less private transport;
* Saving energy by adopting and investing in energy efficiency measures in home and
office;
* Strengthening the standards required for energy efficiency in appliances, buildings, etc.;
* Raising the "tolerable standard" for housing insulation and energy efficiency, increasing
range of energy improvement grants available for low income households;
* Taking full advantage of new building developments to insist on the best current energy
efficient design, instead of being prevented by the property developer's preconceived and
energy-inefficient notions of "what the market expects".
The changes that are required to ensure a sustainable society require a revolution in the
attitudes in society. The path to a sustainable future will be gentler if it is driven by the will
of the people rather than the stick of the government. To enable this process a substantial
programme of environmental education needs to be embarked upon to encourage a
realistic perception of the current environmental situation. This may lead to a new sense
of direction and morality within society.
6.5 Sustainable Energy and the Future – The Need for Action Today
Looking into the future it is difficult to assess what demands and technological advances
the next century will bring, nor what their implications for energy will be. One thing,
however, is very clear: From the point of view of human health, our society and the natural
environment, serious changes are already a matter of necessity. We do not have much
time to set up the frameworks to bring about these changes. Because changing an energy
policy, like turning a supertanker, takes a long time, it is essential that we must begin now
to implement the far-reaching changes that are needed in Europe's energy policy and
infrastructure, in the interest of true sustainability. Already we need to agree on the criteria
which will form the basis of a significant reduction of our energy consumption to
sustainable levels. Moreover, the process of reduction must be one which is well
monitored, so that the people of Europe can readily assess its progress. We need also to
start the change in the balance of Europe's energy supply, away from its overwhelming
reliance on fossil fuels, towards one where renewable sources become the major
components.
We recognise that for such changes to be effective, not only the market, but our European
society itself, may need a reorientation, in order to begin to realise the goal of sustainable
development. Europe has enjoyed an abundance of energy, and we rejoice in the many
excellent things that have resulted from it. But it is now time to address our wider
responsibilities, to change our habits of profligacy, damage and waste in the use of the
energy we have been given, to ones governed by good stewardship both now and for
future generations, by care for the natural environment and the creatures we share the
planet with, and by an equitable sharing of both the risks and benefits which energy brings.
36
Appendix to Chapter VI: Summary Data on Energy Supply in Europe
The most recent complete energy data available to us were for 1992 (Energy in Europe,
DG XVII, June 1994). Figure 2 summarises energy consumption by source for EU and
EFTA countries.
* European energy supply is dominated by the fossil fuels. Out of the 15 countries which
now comprise the EU, 7 relied over 96% on fossil fuels and 13 over 78%. Only France
(61%), Finland (61%) and Sweden (38%) showed a significant different pattern.
* Oil is the single largest energy source for all EU countries (EU average) except the
Netherlands (indigenous gas 49%) and Sweden (nuclear 35%). Oil was over 60% of the
energy supply in Italy and Greece and nearly 80% in Portugal. Almost all of this is
imported from outside the EU. Only the UK has significant oil resources.
* Coal is the second largest EU fuel at 20%. It ranks high in Denmark (39%), Germany
(31%), Luxemburg (27%), and France and Belgium (nuclear). Only in the UK and
Germany are there significant indigenous supplies, however.
* Gas use is generally between 10-25% of the supply (the EU average is 18%). The
largest reliance by far is in the Netherlands, at 49%.
* Hydroelectricity supplies less than 2% of Europe's total energy, and is a significant
source only in countries where topography allows, primarily the Nordic and Alpine
countries. Indeed, in Norway it is the dominant source at 46%, but this is exceptional. In
the EU, other forms of renewable energy play a very small role so far, with the exception of
wood-derived biomass in Finland, Sweden and Austria (9-16%). Italy uses 1.3%
geothermal energy. Wind is still a very minor contributor. Although 1993 data suggest
that the renewables contribution is beginning to rise, it is still "a drop in the ocean"
compared with the fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is especially a matter of deep division among the EU States, and as a
result there is no Community-wide policy on the subject. It is used in 8 of the 15 EU
States, and generates about a third of EU electricity, and 14% of its total energy. It is the
main source of all energy in Sweden (35%) and a close second to oil in France (37%). It is
also the major source of electricity in Belgium and Scotland, and important in Finland,
Spain and Germany, and outside the EU in Switzerland.
The indigenous vs. import picture reveals great differences. With oil so dominant, and only
the UK and Norway being large producers, other countries rely heavily on imports, which
becomes a major factor for energy policy. Although gas and coal are used less, the
position is similar. Only the Netherlands, Norway and the UK are main gas producers, and
Germany and the UK main coal producers. Electricity is widely traded across the EU. In
1992 France and Germany were major exporters, and Italy, Germany and the UK major
importers.
End use of energy is fairly evenly spread between industrial, transport, and domestic and
commercial sectors, with variations from country to country. The general trend shows an
increase in the transport and domestic and commercial sectors and a decline in industrial
energy use over 10 years, with transport increasing its share.
37
Conclusions on Energy and Sustainable Development
1.
Current Energy Problems
There is a growing recognition that Europe is using far too much energy per capita and
has far too great dependence on fossil fuels. The current pattern of energy use is not
possible or realistic to continue through the next century. It is not possible because stocks
of fossil fuels are finite and dwindling. It is not realistic to continue the reliance on fossil
fuels because of the damage to the environment in terms of the global warming, acid rain
and atmospheric pollution affecting human health and communities.
2.
European Union Policy
Current EU policy aims include the goal of developing a free and competitive internal
energy model and the goal of minimising the negative impact of energy use and production
on the environment. These two goals appear to conflict in practice. In particular, the
market framework has failed to address adequately how the potential for renewables and
energy efficiency can be fully developed within a market dominated by cheap fossil fuels.
Additionally, the market model encourages consumption and is based on prices which do
not adequately account for environmental costs. This conflict is further illustrated by the
failure to implement a carbon/energy tax. There is an urgent need for the political will to
address the demands of the EU environmental goal.
3.
The Path to Sustainable Energy
The ways forward are not easy, and each path has both advantages and disadvantages.
However, it is clear that steps should be taken to:
1) Reduce energy use
2) Promote energy efficiency
3) Promote renewable sources
4.
Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
Opinions are sharply divided on the role of nuclear fuel in a future energy policy. For some
people the potential damage of an accident is too great to consider the use of nuclear
energy. For others nuclear power offers a viable method of reducing fossil fuel pollution,
with risks which are not unacceptable. The medium-term goal should, however, be to
switch reliance to renewable energy, while recognising that this also carries risks and
problems.
5.
Urgent Measures
Changes need to be implemented urgently to reorient EU energy policy to one which is
less dependent on fossil fuels and uses a greater proportion of renewable sources.
Policies to achieve this include internalising environmental costs of energy production,
offering significant R&D subsidies for renewable sources, regulating carbon emissions,
taxing fossil fuel use and introducing the needs of future generations in the costing of nonrenewable energy sources.
38
39
VII
Case Study 2: Transport & Sustainable Development
7.1 Transport – a Case of Unsustainable Growth
The problem of transport and mobility has emerged in recent times as one of the central
issues in any consideration of sustainable development for Europe. It has become a
controversial issue – a source of deeply divided opinion in our societies, and our political
institutions.
Europe's transport system has thus become a major obstacle to an efficient policy of
reducing CO2 and acid emissions. Traffic on roads, especially individual car traffic, has
exploded in postwar Europe (see fig.5) and a seemingly ever expanding network of roads
and motorways has been built to service this growth (see fig.6). This has resulted in an
unbroken rise in energy use in the transport sector, which by 1991 accounted for 31,7% of
total energy use in Europe (see fig.1 and 2). In southern European nations, the
percentages are even higher (see fig.1). The example of Germany (fig.3) is typical, with
the predominant contribution to energy use coming from individual cars, although lorry
traffic also continues to rise.
The other major increase in transport has been in air traffic. The relevance of this to
climate change issues has been significantly underestimated for a long time. Predictions
indicate a threefold growth in air traffic by the year 2005 globally.
By far the largest energy sources for transport are oil derivatives. Petrol and diesel are
used for road vehicles. Kerosene for aeroplanes and (mostly) oil for ships. Rail transport
relies on a mixture of diesel and electricity, the balance varying from country to country. At
present in most EU countries, most of this electricity is also derived, inefficiently, from
fossil fuels, but there are exceptions like France and Sweden, where most electricity
comes from nuclear and hydro. Overall, however, the result of this dramatic increase in
road and air traffic throughout Europe since the second world war is correspondingly large
increase in transport emissions have risen (see fig.4).
Transport has now become one of the largest sources of CO2 in Europe, and is by far the
fastest growing source. They are also the primary cause of emissions of nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and airborne particulates (see fig.4).
Moreover, most predictions expect these to grow still further. For example, the UK
Government's strategies for climate change and sustainable development acknowledge
that all the actions taken to curb emissions, such as more efficient engines and catalytic
converters, will be negated by the effects of the predicted traffic increase in the first
decade of the next century. This report has already highlighted the urgent need to make
large reductions in our emissions of CO2 and of acid gases from burning fossil fuels, in
order to reduce the predicted global effects of climate change and much other serious
damage to the natural environment. It has become clear that one of the highest priorities
for reducing these emissions must now be transport sector.
The increase in road transport has also brought with it greatly increased urban air pollution
and noise problems. In the UK, the great improvements in the urban atmosphere brought
about following the Clean Air Act in the 1950's are now being negated by new pollution
arising from road traffic. Transport emissions are increasingly being linked to the large rise
in asthma and other serious respiratory conditions in cities and even in rural areas.
40
The transport impact we all prefer to ignore is death and injury caused by road accidents.
Over the last 15 years, 50.000 people in Europe have died every year in road accidents
and 1.5 million are injured (see fig.5). Although currently some of the statistics (see fig.5)
are not strictly comparable because of different methods of statistical research in Europe –
a problem which the "CARE-project" of Eurostat is working on – the basic message is
quite clear nevertheless. The economic consequences for Europe are extremely serious.
The health insurance costs for Europe for treating 15 million injured people (inhabitants of
the Netherlands) over the past ten years had not been reckoned. Road accidents now
cause more years of work lost than any other cause for people below retirement age. And
there is no way of measuring the human suffering.
The natural environment is being destroyed by new road developments, and landscapes
are being cut into pieces between transit corridors. It is well known that for 100 metres on
both sides of motorways no crops should be grown, because the soil is poisoned by
emissions, especially heavy metals. This loss of agricultural land is equivalent to a 200
metre wide band passing almost twice around the globe.
From whichever viewpoint on looks – global warming, urban pollution, congestion and
health in our cities, environmental degradation in the countryside, health costs, lost
economic output and human death and suffering – this growth in road transport is utterly
unsustainable. And yet the main scenarios for projecting future transport have predicted
that up to the year 2010 the overall volume of traffic transportation in Europe will grow
even quicker than in the past, a growth of between 30 and 80% is predicted.
7.2 How are the Governments Responding?
7.2.1
At a National Level
We have taken Germany as an example. After the opening of Eastern Europe, Germany
has become perhaps the number one "transit country" in Europe and has to give serious
attention to its transportation policy as a result. The "backwards and forwards" strategies
of German transport policies illustrate the struggling interests vis-à-vis the complexity of
these growing problems, and similar effects can be observed in EU countries' transport
policies.
The German Government has certainly noted the problem and is trying to respond. The
first decision was made in November 1990 to reduce CO2 emissions in all areas of society,
aiming at a reduction of 20% from the total of the CO2 emissions from all sectors by the
year 2005, including the transportation sector.
Admitting the complexity of the
transportation problem, a lot of studies were planned, and big hopes were expressed in
new technologies. But it was also recognised that future transport policies would have to
study the patterns, conditions and structures in society which lead to increased transport
and those which reduce or avoid it.
In a second decision by the German Government in December 1992, this last aim was no
longer stated. Instead, an elaborate list of proposals regarding technical and tax traffic
management instruments, including support of public transportation, was planned, at the
same time as an expansion of road construction.
The third government decision concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions in the transport
sector was made in September 1994. Again it does not mention the vital transport policy
task which the 1990 decision had explicitly admitted: the need not just to work out how to
41
cope with a given quantity of transportation, but to study and influence the conditions
which produce or avoid the need for transport.
A new idea in the 1994 paper is that of interconnected transportation systems to cope with
the expected growth of traffic (see below, section 4.1). New technologies like telematics
can help to avoid unnecessary transport. But the answer the paper gave to the predicted
continuation of transport growth was to accept it as inevitable and so to propose an
additional 2620 km of new German motorways. Nevertheless, the possibility of a new
instrument was mentioned: to develop a study of the underlying causes of traffic
production (??), but it gave no details or timetables for this potentially useful instrument.
Air traffic is briefly mentioned, but without any discussion of the consequences of its
emissions. The possibility of taxing emissions is mentioned, but the proviso "only in a
framework which would not reduce competitive standards of German air enterprises"
effectively nullifies any intentions in this direction.
7.2.2
At the European Level
In its Fifth Programme of 1993, the European Commission included a chapter on transport
in which it acknowledged the importance of transportation for economics, but also admitted
its implications for the environment. It proposes a concept of "sustainable mobility" which
contains six strategies:
- Improved land use and economic development planning at all levels, to reduce the need
for mobility and allow for the development of alternatives for road transport;
- Better coordination in planning transport infrastructure networks and facilities, and
incorporation of real environmental costs in investment decisions;
- Improving the competitive position of sustainable types of transportation (rail, water);
- Development of integrated urban public transport systems;
- Continued technical development of vehicles and fuels;
- Promoting a more environmentally rational use of the private car, including speed limits
and educating for changes in driving habits.
The Commission published an interim report of its discussions on transportation in
December 1994. There are three main areas set out, where progress is needed to make
transportation sustainable:
1.Infrastructure
2.Fuel and vehicle
3.User behaviour
1. The priority of the Common Transport Policy is "the creation of a Trans-European
Network (TEN) for transport. It is crucial that its development follows sustainable mobility
conditions. Unfortunately progress in this direction has been piecemeal and slow.
Environmental concerns must play an essential role in work in the TEN. A satisfactory
methodology for a meaningful environmental impact assessment of a strategic programme
like the multi-modal TEN programme has yet to be formed".
2. Here the Commission is aiming at improved fuel and vehicle technologies to reach air
quality objectives. It aims to use many different detailed proposals and financial support
mechanisms, like funds for investigation in transport infrastructure projects which have to
be sustainable (e.g. a metro system for Athens). The problem of internalizing of external
costs (including environmental costs) is quite strictly demanded, although the absence of a
42
solution is also admitted. "An economic approach is particularly important in tackling CO2
emissions from transport". The proposed CO2 energy tax could only have a marginal
impact on the price of motor vehicle fuel and thus on the general use of vehicles.
Telecommunication is mentioned as a main possibility to reduce traffic. At Community
level an important project for "sustainable cities" was sponsored by a cooperation between
the Commission and those involved locally, which resulted in a "Charter for European
Cities and Towns towards sustainability", signed by some 80 European cities. In addition,
with the help of the Commission the "car free cities club" was launched in March 1994.
3. Reducing car use crucially depends on changing the attitude of transport users.
Progress in this field is slow. The Community has to rely strongly on Member States and
regional and local authorities. The interim report concludes: "Much more needs to be
done. Otherwise sustainable growth of the transport sector, already a significant problem
and concern today, will become the key environmental issue tomorrow. Transport growth
has to be recognized as an obstacle to further economic development and a source of
environmental problems. Solutions need to be based in cost-effective measures and in reorientation of infrastructure planning. At the same time many of the changes required to
achieve sustainable mobility will mean progress towards a more efficient transport system.
At Member State level, there is a growing awareness of the costs of further traffic growth
and of the impossibility to extend infrastructure to adapt demand. Predictions show that
growth in the transport sector is likely to be rapid and the outstrip growth in the other five
sectors of the Fifth Programme. There is therefore a clear need to break the link between
growth in transport and economic growth, just as happened in the energy sector some
time ago. Only a change in attitude of both the transport policy makers and the users can
bring this about. If trends are allowed to be pursued unchecked, transport itself will
become unsustainable".
It is significant and surprising that air traffic is not mentioned in this interim report. In
August 1995 the Commission published an outline document for the review of the Fifth
Programme. It contains some reflections on transport. It says: "Attempts to move towards
a sustainable development pattern have encountered a number of important difficulties.
Current growth trends in traffic associated with underlying economic changes, general
economic growth and the internalisation of economic activities in principle lead to growing
environmental impacts." Traffic growth is given much more attention than in the interim
report of November 1994. The growth in freight-transport is called an "unexpected
increase". Growing public awareness of the transport problem is admitted, complaints
about the process of "getting the prices right" being slow expressed, as well as concerns
about the imbalance of Community support in favour of road construction from the mayor
Community funds. At least air traffic emissions are noted to be a special concern in view
of their potentially very harmful effects at high altitudes.
In comparison with the November report the wording of the August outline seems to have
lost some push to cope with the transport problem. The proposed aspects which need to
be addressed are not the ones needed for a re-orientation of transport policy to become
sustainable.
7.3 Mobility – an Analysis of a Current Fixation
Mobility is a fundamental need of human beings, their lifestyles, their possibilities for
communication and exchange of culture, science and goods. Life needs exchange and
communication, and therefore needs mobility. The question which matters is what mobility
is needed for sustainable development.
43
Mobility combines the factors of space and time. To understand what sustainable mobility
might imply, we feel it is helpful first to reflect briefly on these two elements. Although we
cannot change them, we can change the way we see and use them. Time measurement
has always been based on observations of nature, e.g. the Egyptians predicting the
flooding of the Nile. Technology has changed our use of time. With the invention of the
mechanical clock and the portable watch especially, there has come an approach to time
which is less dependent on correlations with nature and its rhythms, but which emphasizes
the idea of time as mechanical, linear, measurable, divisible into regimented intervals, and
also a commodity which can be bought.
In the past, however, a balance of two recognised seasons – of "daily work" and "festival
time" – was deeply rooted in the values of the community. The "leisure" period of daily life
was meant as an interruption to express and manifest a community feeling. In contrast to
this, modern technology and economic systems have progressively re-ordered and
constrained this former sense of time. As a result a lot of different time symbols in
different regions of the globe have been overlaid instead by a global time pattern, highly
influenced by modern industrial production. The mechanically-driven time concept has
pushed the process of industrialisation during the past 200 years. This has been an
excellent tool for accelerating production methods and achieving high efficiencies, which is
partly the cause of the unbelievable wealth which industrialised countries have come to
enjoy. But this sense of time has lost sight of other aspects of life. Instead we have made
an "idol" out of time, which is reflected, for example, in the slogan "time is money". This
shows that our use of time is a cultural value. The things we consider most important to
do with the time available to us express what we, and our culture, believe about the
relative value of things.
One of the key factors in Western industrialised countries in the last 50 years has been the
phenomenon of continuous acceleration. This has become a dominant feature in many
aspects of our society, and expresses itself especially in our approach to mobility. From
the beginnings of the railway system to supersonic aircraft, technology has created the
possibility for seemingly ever faster travel. This acceleration arising out of technology has
brought about a corresponding acceleration in society as a whole. As this process has
been applied within the logic of the market, the result has been, under pressure of
competition, the insatiable incentive to work longer periods and ever tighter margins for
both people and machines. The logical conclusion of this would be non-stop working, if
other factors did not intervene – including breakdowns of both machines and people.
A characteristic feature of this is how much we are letting the logic of technological
processes set the clock for us. In matters of time, as in many other ways, if technology is
allowed to become the dominant paradigm, it gradually pushes out the human element –
not because we wish this to happen, but simply because it is the logic of technology. In
itself, it is impersonal and relentless, and has no built-in programme to take account of
human factors and more human-centred measures of time. The pressure for ever greater
speed and efficiency is eating up our sense of how much time we have, causing increasing
17
stress, both on ourselves as individuals and the structures of our society.
This acceleration process cannot go on in an unlimited fashion. You can only "save" so
much time. There are serious dangers. Imperceptibly, acceleration carries us along until
suddenly we find ourselves beyond a critical speed, where we are no longer in control. In
17
44
Even babies, it seems, have to arrive "in time", which is not "their time".
any system, from the productivity of a large technological process, to the time
management of our everyday lives, the closer we live to the margins, the less room there
is for error, and so the more we put ourselves at risk of something serious going wrong. If
there is no longer enough "slack" in the system, it is at risk both ways. It is unable to
absorb and respond to human errors, ransom process and unforeseen events and also
valuable opportunities are missed, because we did not have time to stop and see them. It
also makes us become more isolated from each other. The more we have time only to
perform our "production function" in the machine, the less place there is for human
elements.
The conclusion is that to be sustainable, each industry, our private lives and indeed
European society itself, all need to build into their structures the notion of "free time" – the
room in which to think and to reflect. In Chapter IX, we go on to observe that, in part, this
is what the old Hebrew idea of Sabbath meant. Unimpeded acceleration not only stresses
our actions and reduces our choices, but it also erodes our capacity to act in a measured
human and civilised fashion. There is therefore a limit to acceleration, and thus a limit to
mobility.
There is, of course, a right place for speed and efficiency in economics and technology,
but it needs to be set to the right rhythm. And this is not usually the maximum possible
speed! There is much to be learnt from the rhythms of the ecological systems. There can
be both a productivity and a closeness in going slower. You can see more and share
more. Creativity needs time and space. This is not only true for the poet, but just as much
for the scientist and the inventor. She needs time to conceive of the innovative step that
will perhaps make the difference between a good idea and a technology that will meet a
human need, help the economy and create new jobs. Remember that Newton needed first
to sit under a tree and watch in order to see the apple drop.
Behind these phenomena there is a basic urge to be free of the natural constraints of time
and space in their cycles. Up to a point this has many benefits, but beyond this point it can
become an expression of an illusory understanding of freedom, which turns into a kind of
bondage. A wish for mobility which is free of any constraints would be at odds with the
natural and cultural conditions of life on which we all depend. The more this notion of
"freedom" is sought, the less it is found. For some people, it can lead to a kind of fixation
with high speed, driving ever faster for something which is ultimately an illusion.
The desire and thrill of speed is one contributory factor of a fundamental problem
experienced throughout Europe – why it is so difficult to change the pattern of private car
use.
To drive a car is bringing into reality an old human dream: to move quickly wherever you
want. This can be a very expression of self-identity, and has many psychological
elements. A car is more than an instrument for moving. For some, to get into the driving
seat can be a place where one re-establishes one's sense of ego, perhaps in the face of
either a senseless daily life or the frequent blows of competitive modern life. To drive a
car gives a feeling of independence and power. Enough people identify with the power of
their engine for it to be one of the classic focuses for car advertising. A car also isolates
the driver from closer contact with the surroundings. In our mobile box we are largely
isolated from each other, and we so easily regard other road users as simply a nuisance.
"Road rage" is now a recognised psychological feature. But inside our cars we are also
remote from the environment and the effect our driving is having on it. In older times the
coach protected privileged people on their journeys from the contact with ordinary people.
45
The car is now the "coach for everybody", a comfortable privilege which shields us from
our damage to the environment.
There is an emotional barrier to give up that convenience of the car and use public
transport. It forces us to regulate ourselves to timetables rather than going exactly when
we choose. Even the frustration of traffic congestion proves less of a disincentive to drive
to work than might have been expected. Again, we are not forced to mix with our fellow
human beings – especially in crowded commuter vehicles – if we go by car. Such
attitudes as these might perhaps have been foreseen, but that is beside the point. It is
now much more difficult to change what we have become so used to and so dependent
on. These emotional and psychological aspects must be taken into consideration, if we
want to bring about a change of our habit.
A "car-society" has emerged in a postwar Europe. In Germany especially, to possess a
car – preferably a big and expensive one – was the best expression of "being back to life",
that war times were over. And throughout Europe, it has become a status symbol. "Show
me your car and I can tell who you are".
Despite this, in many respects our basic patterns of mobility have not changed much.
Broadly speaking, we are still making the same type of journeys from our homes, and
studies suggest that we spend about the same amount of time doing them. What has
changed through higher speed travel is the distance we cover in that time. We can
commute to work in the city from our home deep in the country. We can, as the airline
advertisement urges us "go shopping in London or Paris", instead of going to the shop
round the corner. As for holidays, for many the further away the better it is; even a trip to a
Pacific island for "a short break". These all give us a feeling of freedom, but they also blur
the limits of time and space. What is nearby is becoming more and more neglected and,
indeed, is being destroyed as, to support all this greater mobility, we turn more of the land
into transit areas.
These underlying reflections on mobility should be a starting point for a new approach
where the notion of mobility is handled more wisely, towards an approach which we may
truly call sustainable mobility (see section 4.2.4). As long as 20 years ago, a classic text in
transport science warned of the social, ethical and economical consequences of unlimited
18
mobility. Unlimited mobility is as bad as unlimited growth. The following sections explore
some ideas about these limits.
7.4 What Should be Done about Transport?
The influential UK Royal Commission on "Environmental Pollution" has published in
October 1994 a report entitled "Transport and the Environment". With this report the Royal
Commission has provided a useful tool for a Community transport policy which clearly
wants to cope with the growing transport problem.
The German Bundestag has installed a commission "Schutz der Erdatmosphäre" known
as "Enquête Commission". It published in July 1994 a report on "Mobility and Climate".
There was both a majority and a minority report, and the latter demanded for the first time
in public that in order to confront the question of climate change, a fundamental change of
European transport systems had to take place. The proposed concept could be a step
forward in developing TEN.
18
46
J.M. Thomson: "Modern Transport Economics", 1978, p.136 ff.
Both reports contain an important chapter on air traffic. In its introduction the Royal
Commission's report says: "The unrelenting growth of transport has become possibly the
greatest environmental threat facing the UK and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving
sustainable development". Two main strategies are suggested: to slow down traffic growth
by reducing transport needs at all levels – and to ensure that users pay the full social and
environmental costs of their transport decisions at all levels.
The German report of the Enquête Commission says that up to now the risk of climate
change so far had no impact on transport policies. But now a major evaluation of the
transportation problem is urgent. It also urges that a main strategy must be to reduce
transport needs on all levels of society. This would have enormous consequences, for
which an integrated political approach is the only solution.
This call for fundamental re-orientation corresponds with the critical reflections on the
ongoing growth of traffic of the interim report of the Commission. The following ideas
might be helpful. A re-orientation of transport policy should proceed simultaneously at four
19
levels:
- a reduction of transport needs at all levels in society;
- a shift to ecologically sustainable modes of transport (rail, water) and public transport;
- further development of more optimized technologies;
- a general deceleration.
The following section 4.1 on lorry-traffic outlines some strategies for these crucial four
steps of re-orientation of the transport sector in Europe. Section 4.2 on individual road
traffic and section 4.3 on air traffic give some ideas for the first step of reducing transport
needs. Section 4.4 on rail traffic discusses the problems of one big hope for sustainable
transport in Europe: the possibilities to transfer traffic to rail.
7.4.1
Lorry Traffic
In the prevailing theories of economics the cost-effective transport of goods is an essential
factor without which economic growth is impossible. The inability to transport goods can
stop the growth of the whole economy. It is well known that there was a correlation
between growth of the GNP and growth of transport in the European postwar period.
One of the factors which has accelerated the growth in freight transport has been the trend
towards specialisation of production, which for many member states has been seen as a
motor for economic growth and the growth of production capacities. This takes advantage
of low relative prices of fossil fuels and the lack of internalisation of the negative patterns
which rely on a large transport element. The economy then becomes dependent on them,
and so a spiral effect is set up. The failure to reflect ecological damage in the prices being
paid for transport has thus exacerbated the growth in freight transport, and made the
ecological damage worse. In Germany, for example, lorry traffic doubles during the period
20
1970-1990 (see fig.8) and it is predicted to double again by 2005 , with a corresponding
increase in gaseous emissions.
19
Demand of the Commission on Environment of the EKD, publ. 1995, EKD-Texte nΕ52, 1995, p.28.
20
St Böge, Freight transportation and its effects on the spatial environment, Wuppertal, April 1995, S.2
47
7.4.1.1 Calculating the Transport Element in Industrial Products
A step towards coping with this problem of growing lorry transportation has been
21
suggested by a study by Greenpeace (EURES-Study) . This did research on economic
development in relation to the traffic development in European countries and found some
remarkable differences. It used a criterion of the "intensity of traffic", which expressed the
relation between a certain amount of production and the transport needed for that
production. There are countries which need comparatively little traffic to produce a certain
amount of goods; they contain many aspects of public services and the specialised
production of high grade goods. These are countries with "low intensity of traffic". There
are other European countries which need a lot of transport to produce a certain amount of
goods; they have a "high intensity of traffic"; thirdly there are countries with a "middle
intensity of traffic". To reduce transport therefore means either slowing down the rate of
economic growth or decreasing the "intensity of traffic". The second solution is preferred.
EURES worked out the following conclusion: a high intensity of traffic is caused mainly by
highly concentrated production structures. To reduce traffic we need decentralized
structures which produce for local markets.
EURES focused on two case studies on transport reduction, one concerned with food
industry. The production and marketing of agricultural and food products is one of the
areas which have shown with the highest increase in centralisation and consequently in
22
traffic growth (see fig.8). The so-called "Yoghurt study" calculated that a total of 4000 km
of transport were involved in producing a carton of Yoghurt on a supermarket ready for
sale. Specialisation, such as "Euro-sourcing", and concentration (huge slaughter houses
in North Italy) are examples of trends which contribute to increasing transport component
in the food industry. Yet food production is an area with great potential for reducing traffic
by regionalisation. There are beginnings in the reform of the European Agricultural Policy,
in the development of food laws and marketing structures and the inclusion of a consumer
information campaign. These should be encouraged.
To reduce the need for lorry transport the analyses of transport networks for the production
and sale of goods ought to become a central factor in the accounts of every enterprise.
23
There are already instruments to make such analyses , in which a product-related
transport analysis model takes account, as far as possible, of all the transport involved
over the life cycle of a product. The analysis is oriented to both manufacturers and
consumers. Consumers' expectations to be able to buy anything, anywhere and at any
time – especially to have products of all seasons available all the year in one supermarket
– has direct consequences on freight shipment volumes and the distances covered by
lorries. The analysis shows the conditions and interdependence associated with
production and consumption of products. The result is a transport intensity index for any
24
given product .
This model has been discussed, in an early stage of development, at a meeting in DG XI
21
EURES-Institut f. region. Studien in Europa, Dead-end Road, Frbg. 1992.
22
Wuppertal Institut.
23
St. Böge, Freight transportation and its effects on the spatial environment, product-related
transportation analysis, Wuppertal, 1995.
24
48
This index could be used as an Euro-sticker "with this product you buy ... kms".
25
26
of the Commission , and was presented later in an application . This exercise has been
applied to mushroom growers. It can be used by businesses to organise their transport
operations in a fashion which is sustainable and, in the long run, cost-effective. Against a
background of increasing public awareness, it is clear that such re-orientation will be
worthwhile. We must find ways to answer the demands and needs of life with less primary
27
resources .
7.4.2.1 Transfer to more Sustainable Modes of Lorry Transport
Road-to-Rail
The second step of the proposed concept is to transfer to more sustainable modes of
transport, represented by the slogan: "Goods on rails". Several experimental methods for
transporting goods by rail have been under development for several years, including
"combined traffic" and "rolling motorways".
Another new concept from the USA is the "trailer system", where a lorry can move as a
train on the rails as well as a lorry on roads. It does not need big freight terminals for
parking and transferring from lorry to rail and back. This system started in June 1995 in
Germany, and trailer-system organisations are in the process of being founded in other
European countries.
More about the possibilities to transfer traffic from road/air to rail will be said in section 4.4.
Road-to-Water
The potential to transfer the transport of goods from road to water (rivers and canals)
seems to be limited. Moreover there are some ecological disadvantages. The floods in
January 1995 in the Rhine valley and Netherlands demonstrated a damaging effect of
changing natural rivers into "water motorways" – which had been started in the 1950's.
Rivers have been straightened to facilitate river transportation, but the side-effect of
allowing water to flow more quickly has been 11 flooding incidents between 1977 and
1995 in the Rhine valley, compared with only 4 between 1880 and 1977. Before the
straightening it took 65 hours for one wave to travel from Basel to Karlsruhe; now it only
takes 30. Side-streams and water meadows, which used to act as sponges in times of
floods, have been cut off. Yet, despite this increased danger of flooding, big projects to
continue this policy are being worked out for the rivers Donau, Elbe, Saale.
7.4.1.3 Optimised Technologies
The third step of a re-orientation of transport policy contains further development of more
optimised technologies. For over 20 years the Community has regulated emissions from
road vehicles and lorries. Standards have gradually been tightened and will be tighter still
in future. The interim report of the Fifth Programme gives a long list of initiatives aiming at
a multi-facetted approach. These are welcomed, but are only part of the solution.
25
26
February 1994.
December 1994, application on "Integration of transport
Ecologica/Lancaster, J. Whiteleg, St. Böge and University of Kassel.
aspects
into
Eco-Audit",
by
27
Products which have a longer lifespan, are easy to repair and can be used in many ways would be a
good starter.
49
7.4.1.4 General Deceleration
The fourth step, general deceleration, is mentioned in the interim report too. The growth or
reduction of traffic is linked to speed and speed limits. Experience shows that possibility of
travelling more quickly makes it easier to travel longer distances, which in turn means
more traffic. This is one major reason for the growth of lorry traffic. One study found that
the absolute volume of goods transported (measured in tons) has remained at the same
28
level, but that it is the distances covered and the speeds that have risen .
To facilitate the transfer from road to alternative modes of transportation, the
internalisation of external costs is central. This is a very "hot potato" in discussions of
future traffic policies. The position of the German Government is simple and significant:
the internalisation of external costs is impossible to realise, because they cannot precisely
estimate either these costs or the advantages of transport.
Nevertheless the interim report of the Commission says: "The absence of an adequate
level of internalisation of external costs (including environmental costs) in transport gives
wrong price indications. An economic approach is particularly important in tackling CO2
emissions from transport".
The Royal Commission is recommending "the polluter must pay" principle and offers
useful material and instruments for an integrated approach.
The same can be said of the study of the European Federation for Transport and
Environment "Getting the prices right". More will be said about this issue in section 4.4.
In any case the Fifth Programme should continue to work on this instrument, although
raising fuel prices would only be a part of the approach.
7.4.2
Individual Road Traffic
7.4.2.1 Patterns of Private Car Use
From what we have said above, the unbroken increase in the individual road traffic sector
(see fig.1) proves the extent to which our life is based around and dependent on the car.
Individual car ownership and car usage is very closely related to rising incomes. If people
can afford to own and to drive a car, they usually do so. During the first decades the car
was a toy for a few rich people, but now it has become a vehicle for all sectors of society,
used routinely for everyday business, trips to and from work, for delivering, for services
and for basic shopping, but this is less than half the story.
In wealthy and highly motorised countries more than 50% of car kilometres are spent on
trips for leisure and holidays. For instance, in Germany in 1989, 43.5% of all car kms were
29
spent on leisure activities, 9% on holidays ; for many people shopping has become merely
30
a leisure activity (9%) . Food shopping is especially dominated by car use. In Germany
1992, an average of 8 kms per day were travelled for food shopping, that had been in total
28
See Böge, p.3.
29
Traffic in figures, the Federal Minister f. Transportation, Berlin, 1991, p.319.
30
See footnote 26.
50
31
30 mrds! kms, spent on food shopping .
Car ownership has transformed mobility patterns and created new ones. Using cars as a
substitute for other modes of transport is only a minor component of the increase in car
kms. The decrease in the use of public transportation is far less than the increase in
passenger car use. Urban and rural development and infrastructure have changed,
especially in respect of shopping and services, towards car-oriented models. This has
resulted in longer distances travelled and an overall increase in car trips. Partly as a
consequence of this, and partly because of individual preferences, more cars are being
purchased. There is an increase in congestion, noise, emissions and the danger of
accidents. The trend of people moving more to the outskirts of the cities has made this
worse, creating an upward spiral of traffic.
The spatial structures we have created, based around car use, often cannot be served
efficiently by public transport. Similarly, and very significantly, many of our lifestyles which
we have developed by using car, would be difficult to pursue if we now had to rely solely
on other modes of transport. Experiences in all highly-motorised countries show that
lifestyles and spatial structures oriented towards private cars inevitably lead to ecological
problems and traffic constraints, no matter what kind of advanced emission regulation and
elaborate road construction programs have been implemented. Society as a whole is
trapped by the car.
7.4.2.2 Urban and Rural Differences
An important factor influencing the journey creation and choice of transport mode is the
difference between urban and rural situations. Traditionally European cities are dense and
compact structures (until the 1970's), with all important economic, social and cultural
activities relatively centralised, and without losing more natural sites which could easily be
reached for leisure and recreation purposes.
In Germany, the last public census showed a massive decentralisation between 1970 and
1987. In other European countries similar changes can be observed. Housing,
employment and the entertainment industry moved from the town to the suburbs, followed
by huge shopping centres, which can be reached only by car. This generated land-use,
transportation and waste problems, and created a division between those who have and
those who do not have a car. This suburbanisation was linked with private "motorisation",
and set up new demands for car use. The car dependency of urban and suburban
structures leads to a specific kind of transport-intensive (and therefore also energyintensive) land use. For those who can afford it, living in single-family houses in a
pleasant green surrounding is a treasured lifestyle. But this has come more and more to
depend on the private car, and a second and a third one, due to growing incomes, the
emancipation of women and "consumer kids". The poorer inner city areas are another
story, however.
In many rural areas, dependence on the car has grown even more than in urban and
suburban structures, with the decline of public transport and a general move of job
opportunities away from rural areas over the last 20 years.
31
H. Bossel, A. Meier-Ploeger, H. Vogtmann (6/1995), Landwirtschaft und Ernährung. Quantitative
Analysen und Fallstudien (Teilbericht A) und ihre klimatische Relevanz (Teil B). Veränderungstendenzen im
Ernährungssystem. in: Enquête-Kommission, Teil II, p.152. This was pushed by a growth of 50% of shopping
of minerals, juices and alcoholics (heavy to carry thus a car used for shopping) in 1984-1990.
51
There is no obvious solution at the moment, but there is clearly an opportunity for the
development of innovative solutions, tailored to the various needs of different rural areas.
7.4.2.3 "Mobility in Europe" and New Approaches to Urban Planning
Important insights were brought by the study "Assessments of Mobility in Europe",
stimulated by the European Commission (DG VII, XI and XVII), in co-operation with UITP,
Socialdata/Munich and a wide range of European co-workers, published in 1992. This first
32
really European approach to mobility established several facts:
Political decision-makers in Europe say that the number one problem is car traffic.
Popular feeling runs along fairly similar lines. One person in four feels it is no longer
sustainable. In wishing to see a new direction in transport policy and traffic planning which
would promote non-polluting transport modes, it seems that Europe's political decisionmakers and citizens present a generally united front. Everyone favours public transport.
However, most of the decision-makers believe that most of the population would still
favour forms of transport planning and policy which favour the car. This misinterpretation
has not escaped the notice of the public. Political decision-makers can have a false
impression of mobility, and do not seem to have realised that very considerable changes in
attitudes of citizens have taken place over a relatively short space of time.
Problems caused by motorised individual transport cannot be solved by taking action
within the sector alone. Transport planning needs to cater for all transport modes. This
provides the opportunity for public transport to play its proper role. "Hard" policies should
now be recommended which offer a combination of good mobility choices for the public
transport, the creation of attractive networks for pedestrians and cyclists, and the
appropriate use of restrictive elements like road pricing and car-free city centres and living
areas. Such moves would have much popular support. An integrated environmental
transport and planning concept promoted in 1993 by the Central Region local authority in
Scotland in its report "All Change" provides an excellent example of the potential for this
approach. "Soft policies" (such as providing information, changing attitudes, and
motivating for change) are underestimated by decision-makers, but the potential to be
effective is there.
To rely solely on, for example, the "polluter pays" principle as the key instrument of
change, would only mean higher costs for motorists without enabling them to develop
alternatives. Not only is a mixed portfolio of enhancements and disincentives necessary,
but a major change in urban and land use planning policy is needed which is based on low
car dependency. We have now come to realise that the integration of the different
functions of life is a crucial element in planning. The fragmented spatial structures which
had been developed under the influence of increased car use will from now on have to be
reformed, step by step.
7.4.2.4 Educating for Change
The interim report of the Fifth Programme says: "Reducing car use depends on changing
the attitudes of transport users. Progress in this field is slow and more action is needed."
32
52
Assessments of Mobility in Europe, publ. by Socialdata, Munich, 1992.
33
A programme at the technical university Berlin might be an inspiration. Their studies on
traffic education over 20 years have developed training concepts for a more "ecological"
driving behaviour, and long-term observations have shown these to be successful. This
concept pays attention to the psychological and sociological role of learning to drive, since
most beginners start driving as young adults at a critical phase of their personal
development, where habits and lifestyle norms are being formed. Strategies in these
34
directions have been developed in several other European countries too.
The Berlin programme just started a new approach: The idea involved a two-stage driving
education, which first reflects on mobility and figuring out which mode of mobility serves
best for what transport. Up to now two education courses of this kind have been done, the
reaction towards it by young people is encouraging.
Unfortunately, wider acceptance of the concept is difficult because of a lack of
understanding of the new approach in organisations of driving teachers and public officials.
The opportunity of learning to drive in Europe could bring a new approach towards how we
understand and use mobility more generally than just driving. Amongst the questions we
need to tackle as well is how we let a car reflect our identity – in a more sustainable
approach to transport, cars which need less fuel will be smaller, lighter and less "privilege35
shaped".
Our reflections on some of the underlying psychological and sociological
aspects of mobility in section 3 of this chapter are offered as a contribution towards the
development of a European "mobility curriculum". It might be a help for shaping the
concept of the standardised European driving license, planned for 1 July 1996.
A changed education programme for driving teachers would be in need as well.
The Commission should convene a Round Table to share the work done up to now by the
various countries as a further step towards the "educating for change".
7.4.3
Air Traffic
The Royal Commission's report says: "Air traffic is globally the most rapidly growing mode
of transport. Between 1974 and 1992 passenger kms travelled in international flights by
UK airlines increased by 26%; about two thirds of these were for tourism. Air freight,
which is carried predominantly on passenger aircraft, has increased less rapidly than
passenger traffic. At the global level, growth has also been very rapid: traffic on scheduled
airlines doubled over the last decade. Europe (39%) and North America (35%) account for
almost three quarters of world aviation activity at present, but the potential for growth is
greatest in the Asia and Pacific region. At present, business travel accounts for 40% of
passenger traffic globally, but tourist traffic is increasing more rapidly. The other principal
36
growth area is intercontinental air freight.
In the medium term there are likely to be
significant improvements in the technology of air traffic control through the use of satellites,
which will considerably increase capacity." It is predicted that passenger numbers, in
Europe, will treble by 2010, which implies that they will more than treble in the rest of the
world. The big European airports (London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris) are planning
extension and new runway capacities.
33
Technical University, Berlin, Prof. Bongard.
34
Norway, Switzerland, Hungary, UK, France
35
Interview with Volkswagen AG.
36
e.g. exotic fruits in each supermarket.
53
A significant proportion of the world's aircraft are military. There is published information
about the numbers of aircraft, but it is difficult to assess the environmental implications.
The Royal Commission discusses in detail the complex effects of aircraft emissions on
stratospheric chemistry. It recommends further research, technical improvements and
regulatory action global in scope, but since the Commission's primary function is advisory
it has not set out detailed policy.
The Enquête Commission argues in less detail but calls for more specific action to respond
to the impact on climate change from air traffic. It calls for an urgent change of attitude
towards air traffic in international politics from one of euphoria to one that is more critical.
The Commission calls for speed limits for planes, of 400-500 km/h and a limit to altitudes
flown, beneath the troposphere. The emissions above the tropopause are absorbed very
37
slowly. For example, nitrogen oxides need 100 times longer than at lower altitudes. It
wants flights to be banned at altitudes where temperatures are lower than -50ΕC.
The Commission accepts that although some questions are still open, air traffic emissions
contribute significantly to potential global warming and destruction of the ozone layer.
Consequently, it recommends stopping the growth in air traffic, using economic
instruments and reductions in airports. There is a special legal problem for the reduction
of air traffic. The so-called "slots" – the rights to start and to land – are old privileges and
38
no legal instrument exists to remove them. Since deregulation of the market in 1992,
39
there is a competitive situation for these slots.
In the light of these and other issues which are now emerging in relation to the
environmental impact of European air traffic, the EU Fifth Programme should be giving a
much greater priority to this question.
7.4.4
Rail Transport
In the previous sections, we have considered three transport sectors which are giving rise
to serious ecological concern, and yet which continue to grow rapidly throughout Europe.
By comparison, most groups in society wish to see rail increase its share of transportations
significantly, seeing it as more compatible with sustainable mobility. In this section we will
examine this perception of eco-compatibility more closely, considering both the passenger
and freight sectors.
7.4.4.1 Energy Efficiency
In the long distance transport of freight, railways are already more efficient in their use of
primary energy than lorry traffic (see fig.9a) and offer the best potential for future energy
savings.
In passenger transport, however, the energy efficiency picture is more complex, depending
on a number of factors, but especially the average utilisation rate of capacity ("seat
37
Produced ozone above the troposphere is 30 times more efficient than near the earth.
38
Wuppertal Institut.
39
See footnote 20.
54
occupancy factor") at which trains are operated and their average speed. To achieve an
energy advantage the train must be reasonably well filled. For the future this will depend
on how far innovative solutions are found by providers of rail services to tap much better
the potential demand of people by an imaginative provision of services that suit their
needs. Although speed is clearly an advantage in wooing passengers from air to rail,
beyond a certain speed this reduces the energy efficiency of the train. Despite the present
enthusiasm for them, with their present occupancy factors, the ultra-high speed ICE and
TGV trains spend about as much energy in carrying a person a given distance as a car,
and only slightly less than the most recent aircraft (see for example fig.9b). The high
weight of these trains per passenger is also a contributory factor, but there would seem to
be scope for technical innovation to improve this situation.
German calculation suggest that, if an average occupancy of 40% is assumed, the best
mode would be a regional "light" train running at 140 km/h, using about half the energy of
an ICE train of the same seat capacity. Clearly if the trend towards greater car use can be
reversed and people won back to rail, higher occupancy would be achieved, and thus
higher energy efficiency. It is also hard to relate these energy efficiency comparisons
directly to emissions, because this depends to what extent electric trains are used, and
then what is the major source of energy used to generate the electricity. In terms of CO2
and acid gas emissions, however, there are clearly greater advantages in countries like
Sweden or France, where most of the electricity does not come from non-fossil fuels.
7.4.4.2 Human and Social Factors
While this picture is perhaps more ambiguous for rail passenger transport than might have
been expected, there are a number of human and social factors which point to rail as a
more sustainable mode of transport. These include less congestion and pollution in towns
and cities, lower personal stress, the ability to do work while travelling, but perhaps greater
than any of these is safety, where the death and injury record of rail (and also air) is almost
overwhelmingly better than road.
7.4.4.3 Economic Factors
The relative costs of rail against car and lorry traffic are influenced by taxes and subsidies.
Again the picture is complex and varies from country to country. Although according to
some authorities, car drivers may be paying in taxes more or less the infrastructure costs
incurred, it is clear that we are not paying for the environmental, human and social costs,
which fall on the community as a whole. By comparison, there is much less doubt that
lorries fall significantly short of paying for their infrastructure costs, which are higher the
heavier the lorry – perhaps 4-7 times more for every extra axle. As things stand at
present, railways can only be run by high subsidies, and are not paying their
environmental costs either.
What is important for achieving eco-compatibility of transport, is to level out these
imbalances as far as possible. As the Royal Commission noted regarding the failure to
include environmental cost, "Seriously misleading price signals have resulted, leading to
decisions which have harmed the community." They call for "the true costs of transport to
more become apparent at the point of use." This indicates a perceptual point. At present,
the cost of rail tends to be experienced more directly by the user than the cost of driving a
car, thus often making rail travel appear relatively more expensive than it really is.
Although setting monetary values to these costs is problematical, steps can already be
55
taken, for example, towards reckoning a fairer comparison of road and rail costs for a
given type of use and the costs of CO2 emissions, and thus allowing a fairer judge of ecocompatibility. If such accounting were done, some authorities calculate that this would
40 41
In itself this would not
reduce the cost of rail freight by 20% relative than road freight.
achieve the desired shift from road to rail without, as we discussed above, at the same
time taking innovative steps to increase occupancy factors and service provisions.
7.4.4.4 Providing an Effective Service at the Lowest Cost to Society as a Whole
In the past, inflexible structures and attitudes in state-run rail systems often led to a failure
to innovate in response to the changed demands of passengers and business. For rail to
achieve its economic potential, it is now clear that fresh approaches will be required to
reflect people's needs in terms of flexibility, speed, timeliness, security and comfort. The
1991 EC directives separating the management of track and services were aimed at
beginning a process to provide incentives for innovation and cutting costs, but this has not
42
proved straightforward. The primary requirement is that rail transport should become
competitive against road and air which does not necessarily means setting up inner
competition. Privatisation is proving a matter of controversy, especially in the UK, where
the model currently being implemented is widely seen as detrimental both environmentally
and socially. Other models, for example in Germany and Sweden, might be more
effective. Some of the past inflexibility could equally well be solved within a sensitive and
responsive public management. But others doubt this and look for other solutions. This is
a matter of current deep debate.
Whatever rail management systems are applied must have as their aim too the social
compatibility of a co-ordinated and fully integrated transport system – where rail is linked
with bus, air, cycle and park-and-ride facilities, and is also integrated with road systems.
The Swiss model seems to offer some attractive features in this respect. Better
international integration is also very important, because trans-national traffic is a major
area of growth. To tap this potential railway companies, whether state or private in each
country need to work harder to integrate their national standards and traditions, if they are
to avoid losing this business to the road and air sectors.
7.4.4.5 Conclusions on Rail Transport
In summary, the most important changes which need to take place affecting rail transport
in Europe are:
a) adoption of fair accounting and taxation systems which truly reflect the external and
internal costs of the competing transport sectors of rail, car, lorry and air;
b) an increase in the occupancy factor of rail-transport and for this
c) the development of innovative and flexible rail service provisions.
40
Fonger, M., “Gesamtwirtschaftlicher Effizienzvergleich alternativer Transportketten”, University
Münster, Beiträge aus dem Institut f. Verkehrswissenschaft, Heft 132, 1993.
41
42
Equivalent figures for passenger transport are not yet available.
A report edited by Swedish rail in August 1995 shows that most EU countries consider this
development interesting but difficult, and some, notably Italy and France, are openly critical.
56
Conclusions on Transport and Sustainable Development
The facts indicate that the European transportation system needs a fundamental reorientation. This is clear from the two recent official publications on transport and the
environment – the UK Royal Commission 1994 report on Environmental Pollution and the
1994 report of the Enquête Commission of the German Bundestag. From these studies,
the re-orientation must proceed on 4 fronts in concert:
- reduction of traffic;
- transfer to ecologically sustainable modes of transport (rail, water, public transport);
- further development of optimised technologies;
- a general move towards deceleration.
The interim report of the Fifth Programme also indicates the need for change in this
direction. The "polluter pays" principle is indispensable, but our case study clearly shows
that it cannot be the only instrument we rely on if we are to achieve the changes which will
be necessary.
W Strategies for decentralising and regionalising economical structures are essential,
because this stimulates traffic reduction.
W Calculating the transport element in industrial products must become an essential part of
economics.
W The integration of urban planning with public transport should become central in the
future planning of our towns and cities, to encourage work, educational and leisure
patterns which require less use of the private car.
W Air traffic needs urgent attention.
W Rail must be structured in a way that it can fulfil its energy-efficiency potential for freight
(mainly long distances) and passengers. This means new flexibility in services to enable
occupancy factors to be increased. These services should be offered to society at the
lowest possible cost. It is vital to achieve a fair balance of taxes and subsidies covering all
transport sectors in order that rail transport fulfils its true potential in an ecologically
sustainable transport system. Rail must develop an integrated transport system (linked
with bus, air, cycle, car, etc.); it must also integrate internationally their national standards
and traditions. Rail must be at the centre of the future TEN-network for Europe.
W Europe needs to rethink its idea of mobility. The introduction of the European driving
license in 1996 could provide an opportunity to begin a re-education, where not only
driving is taught but also the need first to consider what are the appropriate modes of
mobility. Preliminary strategies in several European countries should be developed
further. A Round Table should be convened by the Commission to develop a Europe
"mobility curriculum".
W Europe has a responsibility to begin the change away from unsustainable transportation
systems, especially since other parts of the globe (Asia, Pacific) are fast copying our worst
57
habits. Irresponsible risks to the global climate must be reduced.
The proposals and recommendations mentioned in this case study are seeking to
stimulate thoughts and discussions. They illustrate some of the steps which could help to
set in motion the fundamental changes which are necessary from the point of view of our
European society and our environment. As such they can be seen as elements for
developing a coherent policy programme aiming at sustainable development and
reconciling conflicting objectives, measures and interests.
58
VIII Case Study 3: International Trade and
Sustainable Development
Like the economy in general, trade depends on the ability of society to manage scarce
goods. Exchange of goods between groups and nations is a very natural activity, and
trade may well be a means to promote efficient use of and equitable access to raw
materials, manufactured goods and services whose availability may vary greatly from
country to country. Trade implicitly affects the environment because it is an integral part of
the economy, and economy directly implies an ultimately circumscribed system of material
43
and energy.
As an integral part of the economy, trade must also account for its contribution to the
abuse or preservation of the ecological system in response to the criterion of sustainable
development. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in
Rio in 1992 illustrated that the two concepts sustainability and development are often seen
as contradictory; these differences can produce tensions on economic and political levels.
The Rio meeting also demonstrated that these tensions are often expressed along geopolitical lines and in terms of a "North/South" conflict virtually dividing the world into rich
and poor countries. This is quite understandable in view of the long history of the
development of global trade patterns up to the present time.
International trade patterns naturally grew, as geographical extensions of particular
national or regional economies, along the lines of the most dominant concepts and forces.
In this way, emerging European economies of the early Middle Ages soon came to control
the trade in basic and luxury commodities it carried on with other nations, often on the
basis of military strength and transport technologies. Behind this lay not only a budding
monetary system but a swiftly evolving concept of material development limited only by the
level of scientific and technological advance. Half a millennium of inequitable trade
between European civilisation and its largely tropical colonies in particular has left an
apparently permanent pattern of economic imbalance between these regions.
That this economic imbalance had such direct bearing on the global environment was not
publicly recognised until Rio, when governments of the most industrialised countries tacitly
admitted that the whole world could not possibly develop along the lines of the prevalent
44
economic strategies. The result was new expectations placed on the poorer nations of
the South to renounce similar industrial growth and devote themselves to protecting the
planet's remaining natural reserves. These historical remarks indicate that discussion on
the global environment is inseparable from the geo-political tensions between rich
"developed" and poor "undeveloped" nations.
This section seeks to address questions relating to how trade dynamics and activities
influence the ecological sphere. It is necessary to keep in mind several points here. First,
great leaps in modern technologies of transport and communication – particularly those
related to fossil fuels – have provided the impetus behind the geometric increase in the
volume of trade in the present era. Further, one must be careful not to confuse local with
43
Only solar energy can be said to be theoretically infinite, but the state of technology at present does
not justify our viewing the ecosystem as infinite.
44
This chapter assumes some of the points made earlier with regard to economic principles and models.
59
international trade, for their dynamics and impacts are considerably different. Lastly, it is
not always possible to distinguish between the consequences of balanced and regulated
trade and the practice of unregulated international trade from dominant positions, as we
know it.
8.1 How Trade Affects the Environment
How trade affects the environment can best be illustrated by referring to a sector where
both market principles and political considerations have led to profound manipulation of
economic development and trade patterns in particular: agriculture. A case in point refers
to the strictly regulated European market in animal feeds which has led to disastrous
45
ecological consequences in several poorer countries.
The European Community had set import duties of 6% on cassava and 0% on soya, both
important sources of livestock feed. Within the common European market both prices and
import duties for feed grains are relatively high in comparison with world prices. A number
of developing countries have turned to the massive production of cassava and soya meal,
as substitutes for traditional European feed grains, for export to lucrative European
markets. However, the need for new lands to cultivate them has resulted in the
widespread clearing of dry tropical forest in Thailand, for cassava production, and
extensive felling of rain forest in Brazil in favour of soya as a cash crop.
While the trade-induced introduction of these new crops had direct consequences for the
indigenous habitats in these developing countries, the same trade regulations had
immediate ecological consequences in Europe. In general, the increased availability of
feedstuffs gives added incentive to an already overdeveloped and (by much of its current
practices) polluting industry, that of livestock production. It is now well established that the
primary sources of pollution in many rural European areas are not only agricultural inputs –
including pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers – but animal waste itself. More specifically
related to the case referred to here, the new trend toward imported tropical feed products
has meant an intensification of livestock production near ports, causing heavy pollution
from the spread of manure, and consequently a decline of animal production in other more
ecologically – and economically – suitable regions.
Although trade regulations in this sector have led to negative ecological consequences, it
is not impossible that a revision of the regulations could both respond to market forces and
diminish the harmful ecological results. In this case we recommend raising the import
duties on the tropical feedstuffs and diminishing those for food grains and cereals in
general. Where these tariffs lead to additional income for the industrialised countries,
profits could be used to tackle the environmental damages and address food security
problems which have already been caused in the developing countries.
Similar patterns can be discovered in relation to the trade in tropical timber, rare plant and
animal species or bio-genetic materials. These are cases where the incentive for trade
comes from the high demand for a relatively rare product whose commercial value is
clearly determined by a certain model of consumption. Many problems result less from the
nature of the product than the way it is produced. Here one thinks of the mass plantation
production of cotton or groundnuts in West Africa, pineapples or sugar cane in the
Philippines, and bananas in Latin and Central America, where an increase in cultivated
land has caused deforestation, erosion, pollution and the loss of local species.
45
60
The example is taken from H. Von Verschuer, The Future World Economic Order, 1991.
Two factors determine the pressures on developing countries and other areas where
environmental conditions are deteriorating or fragile. Firstly, they are determined by the
type of commodities in demand in the leading consumer nations, and secondly by a series
of factors involving the monetary system itself. Many agriculturists in the Third World have
been pushed by governmental policy to cultivate cash crops, regardless of national food
security or ecological considerations. But this pattern does not necessarily occur in
developing countries: one need only to think of peat production for export in Ireland, for
example. One must be clear, however, about the ways in which trade policies and
regulations themselves affect trade.
8.2 The Inherent Dynamics of Trade
46
The necessity of a regulated market is recognised elsewhere in this series, two of the
foundations of the market economy being 1) the free movement of goods, services, labour
and capital, in response to 2) supply and demand. It is clear, however, that without an
understanding of the proper functions of the economy and the provision of a framework of
guidelines for economic behaviour, market mechanisms (including trade) can produce
harmful effects for society. Trade is an extension of the economy and has an impact both
in terms of the nature of the economic system and because trade increases the scale of
the economy. The major argument in favour of multilateral trade agreements is that all
countries can benefit through increased economic growth through trade itself. The
question of scale is of course confronted by the notion of ecological limits. This fact has
been publicly recognised since the early meetings of the Club of Rome. The ecological
consequences determined by the very nature of an economic model can be discussed
under the heading of sustainable development.
"Free" trade or regulation
The hypothesis of an unrestricted market is untenable as it would mean competition
reduced to the law of the strongest; not only does a consumption-based economy
contribute to disrespect for the environment, but the pressures of competition further lead
to the exclusion of ecological considerations. We have already mentioned the economic
imbalance, particularly between North and South, which has developed historically. At
present there is a wide disparity between the broad freedoms, or lack of adequate
controls, of cartels, monopolies and transnational concerns. The weight and scale of
dominant commercial interests often puts them beyond international and democratic
control, not to speak of national legislation or supervision. A second major cause of global
economic imbalance is the disequilibrium in foreign trade regimes, tariff and non-tariff
import barriers and production and export incentives, usually based on narrow national or
regional political interests. At this level we can speak of trade distortions as causing
environmental damages. Unless these interests are directed to take account of ecological
factors and sustainable development, trade regimes will continue to exacerbate
environmental degradation and thwart sustainable policies.
In fact, a critical examination is now necessary in order to understand better the conditions
under which trade develops. Our present information on trade practices is very much
fragmented. We know very little, for instance, about the consequences of trends of
globalisation in trade, cartels, transnational corporations, and new multilateral agreements.
More specifically, the impact of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs
46
See, for example, section 4.5 above.
61
and Trade (GATT) accords on agriculture and the trade in intellectual property rights is not
yet clear. Moreover, we know almost nothing about the relation between the informal
economic sector and bartering, and formal economy and trade. The informal sector in fact
appears to be increasing in importance in some regions.
Trade promotes growth in the economy by increasing available supplies of any particular
good and subsequently meeting effective demand. Trade-induced growth, however, also
contributes to stress on the environment. It leads to the reduction of natural supplies
(absolute or induced scarcity), reducing the diversity and capacity for ecological
regeneration (eliminating alternative resources), and/or straining the ecological carrying
capacity (dealing with waste). It goes without saying that trade involves transport and thus
the use of resources and energy. In this respect, it accounts for an important proportion of
economic turnover, while only indirectly relating to production and consumption. The
questions of transport and energy in relation to the environment have been dealt with in
previous chapters.
Economic models and the question of scale
Prevalent economic wisdom holds that trade does not directly affect the environment.
Indeed, the GATT has sought to argue that environmental clauses were not necessary in
multilateral trade agreements and has treated unilateral attempts to invoke environmental
47
restrictions as non-tariff barriers motivated by protectionism. This has made it difficult to
apply the polluter pays principle to trade.
There would be an element of truth in such a distinction were it not for the following
arguments. First, the present level of global economic activity raises the question of
economic scale and the relation to ultimate limits, environmental or otherwise. Since the
GATT was founded in 1948, world gross product has quadrupled and the volume of world
trade has increased fifteen times; the trade proportion of global economic activity now
totals approximately one quarter of world gross product. It is understandable then that
environmental problems were not previously seen to be acute, but it is now more than
evident that they must be accounted for in multilateral trade negotiations.
Secondly, as an economic process, trade will influence the economy for better or for
worse, depending on the economic model which guides, or misdirects, it. Trade patterns
clearly have direct and indirect consequences for the environment. Like any economic
activity, trade responds to market impulses but it also develops over time in response to
social and political factors, at national, regional and international levels. This fact has
always been recognised by governments who, for example, wish to promote fledging
industry, foster product substitution or protect national technologies or achieve monetary
stability. This leads to the creation of legislative measures in the form of trade barriers,
whether tariffs or otherwise. These measures then determine the nature and flow of trade,
guiding, promoting, discouraging or distorting it for various purposes, depending on one's
point of view. The significant point here is that trade is never "free"; accounting for
environmental aspects of trade in its political management, at all levels, is therefore an
extension of present legislation, but with a new urgency however.
Trade has been seen to "determine" the quality of the economy. Its very flexibility,
however, demonstrates that it is the result of economic contingency which arises from the
47
For further comment on the GATT process, see M. Windfuhr, 1992: Trade, Environment and
Development, EECOD Working Paper.
62
48
constant change of the relevant economic factors. In order to better manage trade we
must better understand the incentives which govern trade. This assumes that certain
forms of counter-incentives developed for political and other reasons should be set aside.
Monopolies and dominant market positions
At this point it may be possible to observe the conditions for competition and on this basis
to agree on rules for trade which would match environmental and social concerns with the
inherent economic incentives or disincentives. It is evident that multinational corporations
are not bound to any environmental rules other than those which may apply to a strictly
national level in very few states. That very few developing states have such rules is a
symptom of the global dominance of particular interests.
The issue of dominant positions in the world market is a crucial problem for world
economic order. "One major imbalance in the present world economic order is the
disparity between the relatively wide margin of freedom in international trade and the
general absence of control over cartels, monopolies and other dominant positions on the
49
world market." Control of large sectors of international trade by a very small number of
enterprises can be illustrated not only by investigating particular sectors – it is believed
that 80% of the cereals trade is commanded by five transnational companies –, but also by
the high proportion of international trade that is actually carried on within such
multinational groups of concerns. This makes it extremely difficult to prevent monopolising
and cartel practices. While some rules on competition have been adopted by members of
GATT, there is no international anti-trust agency. Moreover, effective international control
of state-owned enterprises trading internationally is practically non-existent.
In sum, trade cannot be expected or allowed to "control" an economy, as though detached
from its environmental implications. Rather, it should be managed so it can respond to
supply and demand in a manner which takes due account of them.
8.3 Trade and Environmental Compatibility
More recently, management of trade has taken the form of new non-tariff environmental
measures which have been highly disputed and accused of being forms of national
protectionism. The most poignant case to date has been the US versus Mexico "tuna"
dispute. There are two issues at the heart of the matter: 1) one political, whether a nation
may act unilaterally to protect the environment in an international economic context; and 2)
another more environmentally relevant question whether environmental measures can be
applied not only to the end product as such or to the total process of production. In this
case the process issue amounted to the question: could one nation tell another how and
where it could fish? When taken before the GATT disputes committee, its answer was
negative.
A number of authors focus on the present trend towards trade liberalisation as one which
potentially poses critical threats to the global environment. Daly and Goodland hold that
"many environmental problems cannot be resolved equitably, efficiently or sustainably by
unregulated markets, and that there is no alternative to public intervention in certain
48
Following on points developed by Helmut Von Verschuer in: Ökonomie und Ökologie: Versuch, das
Problem in einem Gesamtzusammenhang zu sehen, EECCS Working Paper.
49
H. Von Verschuer, The Future World Economic Order, p.23.
63
50
situations."
GATT and "free-trade" economists have argued that deregulation is
necessary to promote extra growth and competition, which will in turn provide for better
ecological management. Daly, Goodland and others respond that the world's ecosystem
cannot sustain further economic growth and that, in any case, competition can enhance
environmentally sound performance only when multilateral agreements provide for
globally-respected ecological restrictions. In other words, any comparative advantage
must not be discriminate against the environment. More fundamentally, these authors
demonstrate that the classical economic theory invoked to defend deregulation assumes
the relative immobility of capital (and labour). Today, on the contrary, trade patterns
presuppose the mobility of huge amounts of capital world-wide – now reinforced by the
GATT chapter on trade-related investment measures (TRIMS) – and it is especially this
element which is unresponsive to ecological (and social) factors of production and
consumption.
While trade might be a legitimate means to manage scarce goods, historically it can be
seen to have produced the opposite effect. It has served to obscure real costs of
production, use and disposal involving those environmental and social factors known to
prevalent economic theory as "external costs". First, the extraction and trade in natural
resources has avoided "internalisation" of ecological costs caused by either imbalances in
world geo-political relations (industrialised countries mining at low cost in developing
countries), or by deliberate national policies which subsidise key natural resources (e.g.
fossil fuels in both developed and less developed nations). Second, present patterns of
capital mobility allow transnational corporations to carry out trade operations without any
51
reference to the internalisation of costs.
Natural resources are thus deprived of any
environmental or political context which might properly indicate their appropriate value.
The issue of trade in intellectual property rights, including patentable products and
processes and technologies, should also be mentioned. The monopoly of economic
factors and the control of mobile capital can exert a negative influence on the long-term
management of critical ecosystems, especially when combined with certain technological
developments. Biological diversity, for example, can be reduced in favour of specific
species and types of products which can be patented more easily. These products are
then controlled by large firms, at the expense of local management of the same resources.
For all this, such cases should not obscure the question of who is best capable of
managing environmental interests. That is a political question beyond the scope of this
discussion. What needs to be understood is that, with regard to the environment, trade
involves far more than just the transfer of limited resources or toxic materials.
We have noted that trade may deal in such "non-material" goods as capital and
knowledge. It can, of course, also have numerous indirect consequences on such factors
as employment and energy and, in turn, a broad range of social and other factors. This
illustrates further the need to establish environmental limits to the present climate of
technological advance. Geological and geographical variations mean that for people to
live sustainably in some areas, energy has to be imported, but there are limits as to how
50
H. Daly and R. Goodland, 1992: An Ecological-Economic Assessment of Deregulation (draft
manuscript). These authors have drawn on other writers such as the Dutch economist J. Tinbergen and the
British WWF researcher, Charles Arden-Clarke. The points made here are similar to those arguments
advanced by Daly and Goodland.
51
Indeed, this sector escapes any form of public or, to date, multilateral management which take social
and environmental factors into economic consideration in view of the good of human community. As Daly
and Goodland argue, present economic models cannot integrate such concerns into economic calculation.
64
far this can be taken and still be environmentally sustainable. Each environmental context
has its limits so that even potential technological advances, such as genetic manipulation,
may not represent a sustainable solution even on this level. Restraints on possible
livelihoods or lifestyle, and ultimately the demographic question – how many people can
any particular environment support – are both critical social problems which trade might
seek to address, but may not be able to solve.
These sorts of parameter questions lead us to favour the promotion of a greater extent of
"self-sufficiency" on a regional level, while still recognising that in practice there is global
interdependence. A regional orientation should diminish trade-related waste of resources.
Concurrently, a regional approach might counteract distorted trade pressures which
ultimately strain the environment. This happens in an indirect manner in many least
developed countries, for example, where several transnational corporations monopolise an
external supply of foods, even though needs could largely be met within the region. This
distortion ultimately weakens the economy at its agricultural base. It not only prevents
countries from developing their own sustainable production but cripples them to the extent
that they are unable to respond to the inevitable environmental degradation of poorly
managed rural and urban lands.
Yet another form of environmentally-related trade which is now being discussed is trade in
emissions and toxic wastes. This somewhat inverts the logic of trade as management of
scarce goods. In fact, the scarce good in question is the ability to absorb pollution within
some nationally and geographically defined space. The trade in wastes and emissions
implies that environmental space itself can be exchanged. This contradicts the argument
that trade is not implicitly linked to environment. Again, the fact that trade is governed by a
variety of factors, such as conditions and incentives, makes this a very serious question
not least at the political level. For example, the governments of some poorer countries are
tempted to take earnings from importing industrial countries' wastes. Quotas placed on
manure disposal, in the Netherlands for example, would at least be a step toward setting
limits and helping to raise public awareness.
In summary, two key observations indicate that trade can no longer be held not to affect
the environment. Firstly, the new scale of the global economy has led to the environment
itself being considered a tradable good. We may very much disagree with this
assessment in principle, but political arguments have meant that it is being taken seriously.
Secondly, it is increasingly accepted that all aspects of production are environmentally
relevant.
As a production-related process, trade must therefore be included in
environmental impact assessment.
8.4 Principles and Measures for Sustainable Trade
In consequence, future discussions on trade – especially that in multilateral fora – should
take into account the concept of sustainable development. Some of the main issues to be
dealt with here are:
1)
the advisability of incorporating environmental standards, like social measures, in
trade rules. These may involve a quota system of "emission rights" in which use of
rights includes an appropriate transfer of capital;
2)
redressing imbalances in internal production supports, import protection and export
subsidies. This might include eliminating agricultural subsidies and re-directing them
as environmental incentives;
65
3)
the appropriate institutions (democratic and competent in environmental affairs) and
the appropriate binding instruments for trade regulation.
8.4.1
Accounting for Environmental Costs:
Practical means to internalise environmental "costs" in all types of economic transactions
including trade are already available and must be applied. This requires shifts on several
levels. For example, ecological analyses of modes of production and consumption should
establish "real" environmental costs of goods or services. Economic models should be
revised to include changes in the criteria of economic measurement such as GNP. There
should be agreed political establishment of environmental criteria and values, as well as
minimum standards, at both national and multilateral levels. Some of these concepts are
already developed in a way that at least parts of the external costs actually can be
assessed and accounted for. Of course, the results of these methods must be evaluated
further but they may already be able to give rough estimations of the order of magnitude of
these costs.
Ultimately, this means re-shaping present approaches to the relations between production
and consumption.
Specifically, trade-related processes must be subjected to
environmental impact assessment and to measures which implement the polluter pays
principle. The argument has been made that a producer should be made responsible for a
product from "cradle to grave". If the discussion of "emission rights" and their exchange
goes further, it should be considered within the context of a model of sustainable
consumption. It should not be forgotten that the use of quotas, incentives and taxes can
play an important educational role.
8.4.2
Standards and Instruments of Internalisation:
With regard to the internalisation of ecological costs in trade, two principal instruments are
available. The first concerns legal measures whose intent would be to achieve compliance
with minimal ecological standards. International legal agreements could be applied to
resources (such as fishing rights), production methods (affecting emissions and the like),
or the handling of wastes (providing for minimal conditions for governing interregional and
international transfer and treatment of wastes). On a second level, indirect intervention in
the form of monetary incentives or taxes can be exercised. These could be applied to the
use of non-renewable fossil fuels and to the development of alternative, renewable
energies. In order to prevent further imbalances, however, duties on ecologically-sensitive
goods must be carefully chosen and harmonised. Duties on manufactured wood products,
rather than raw timber, for example, would ultimately have a negative effect on the
producing country, if it is under pressure for foreign exchange.
8.4.3
Towards a Regional Orientation of Trade:
The regional orientation of economies must be promoted in the direction of "selfsufficiency". By this we mean the possibility for people to meet their needs in relation to
the conditions of their immediate ecosystem. Practically, this would mean a decrease in
dependence on transport and energy consumption. A regional approach would help to
restrict superficial and wasteful trade. Moreover, it would facilitate the development of
modes of production which take the ecological context of the region into account.
Similarly, overriding national interests may lead to abnormal trade pressures.
66
Protectionism and competition, through trade barriers and subsidies, may provoke serious
distortions in the affected economies, which in turn can have a negative impact on the
environment. More importantly, a regional approach may be a means of preventing the
complete de-linking of economic and social processes, which might serve to manage the
environment for the benefit of the community's own welfare. Trade should be adapted to
real needs in order to eliminate wasteful trade. The revival of regional economics must be
supported by appropriate and complementary policies going beyond simple strategies to
increase transport capacity. Such steps would require not only public re-education in
terms of consumption patterns but a major re-orientation of present economic models.
8.4.4
Multilateral Trade Agreements:
Multilateral agreements must from now on remove comparative advantages which are
based on the continued externalisation of environmental costs. Instead, they must
establish and enforce minimum standards for trade-induced environmental impact for all
nations. Environmental restrictions to trade can no longer simply be treated as non-tariff
barriers. They must be accounted for in multilateral trade rules in a comprehensive and
52
equitable manner. Instead of simply setting the goal of eliminating trade barriers, trade
agreements should serve to harmonise customs duties or introducing uniform rates for
various countries or custom areas, in order to take account of economic imbalances and
reduce pressures causing ecological exploitation in poorer countries.
8.4.5
International Instruments:
There remain considerable difficulties in legislating and enforcing environmental standards
on the level of international instruments. Linking ecological and social standards directly to
trade agreements, such as those reached under the GATT and World Trade Organisation,
could make for more swift and binding action, but many governments and organisations in
developing countries rightly argue that there is little means of ensuring that these
measures are not imposed for the benefit of the powerful industrialised countries. They
urge that democratically-reached decisions should be sought within multilateral
instruments or bodies of the United Nations system (the Commission for Sustainable
Development, CITES, UNEP, UNCTAD, for example). Here the risk is that measures
adopted would have little effect. The contribution of the European Union in adopting
effective legislation is crucial.
8.4.6
Deprioritising Growth Through Trade:
While industrialised nations must make every effort to evolve in the direction of
sustainability, they must be discouraged from making further economic growth in terms of
scale, and especially not through trade. Concurrently, for both social and environmental
reasons, less developed countries must be assisted in developing sustainability. Quite
apart from the otherwise inevitable result that their economies will grow in unsustainable
directions, persistent geo-political and trade imbalances in the world can only place further
strains on the ecosystem.
52
These points run counter to the recent conclusions of the Uruguay Round of the GATT establishing the
World Trade Organisation. The reactivation of an Environment and Trade Committee and the general debate
on related issues are purportedly among the first topics to be addressed by the new organisation when it is
inaugurated, possibly in January 1995.
67
8.4.7
Other Policy Objectives:
National governments should be urged to implement policy objectives less directly linked
to trade, including the establishment of:
1) national sustainability programmes which include extensive public education;
2)
environmental impact procedures at all levels of economic planning and legislation;
3)
multilateral conventions, programmes and instruments such as those adopted at the
Rio UNCED conference, Agenda 21 and the GEF;
4)
aid programmes with the poorest countries specifically targeted at sustainable
industries.
68
Conclusions on International Trade and Sustainable Development
While trade can actually play a role in the careful management of environmental
resources, within the present economic outlook trade is viewed primarily as an instrument
of economic growth without regard for the impact it may have on the environment. As with
other fields of economic activity, much remains to be done in order to internalise the
environmental costs of trade processes. Pressures placed on the environmental
resources of the South precisely illustrate the under-use of environmental capacity in the
North. Therefore, attention should be especially given to those policies which distort trade
and consequently have deep negative impacts on the environment.
It needs scarcely be repeated that the European Union has become a major trade power.
This fact not only reflects the high levels of international trade carried on by its Member
States, but also the large powers accorded to the institutions of the Union, and the
Commission in particular, in multilateral negotiations. In its interim review on the Fifth
Environmental Programme, the Commission has rightly placed the issue of trade in a new,
sixth, area of concern. This reflects a new perspective on the part of the Union in which it
seeks to make "trade and environmental policy mutually supportive in fora such as
53
UNCTAD, GATT and OECD."
In conclusion, we urge further discussion on what we have identified as three critical
questions:
1)
imbalances in internal supports for production, import protection and export subsidies;
2)
incorporation of environmental standards in trade regulation; and
3)
how the Union intends to pursue its objective of making trade and environment
"mutually supportive" with regard to international instruments.
53
See the Interim Review of Implementation of the Fifth Programme (COM 94 453), p.32.
69
70
IX Some Theological Comments
9.1 The Creation in its Fullness and its Purpose as the Place of God's Permanent
Call
Since the name "God" designates the "foundation of all that exists", then not only human
beings but everything that exists takes on a new meaning and a value in itself,
independent of all human judgement. In the Christian tradition we recognise that this
"foundation of all that exists" is, on the one hand, the God whose Name cannot be
pronounced (Exodus 3.14) and who is different from creation and, on the other, He is
revealed in Love to humankind in Jesus Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit also continues
to bear witness that God is love (John 1.8).
The creation in its fullness is called to reflect this relationship of love. The authors of the
first creation narrative in the book of Genesis testify to this: "And God saw all that he had
made, and it was very good" (Genesis 1.31) and St John's gospel echoes the same idea:
"All that came to be was alive with his life" (John 1.4). Human beings are an integral part
of God's creation, "formed" like the rest "out of the dust of the earth", and sharing the
"breath of life" with everything that lives (Genesis 2.7). God relates to His whole creation:
He is with it and with everything in it. Within the created order, the temporal relationship
between man and woman is seen as an image of the eternal relationship which exists
within the Godhead. And men and women are called to relate to the God as the giver of
life, and to the whole of the unfolding creation as companions.
Men and women are thus meant to be witnesses of God's participation in His creation,
bringing his purposes to fulfilment. The relationship which was at the heart of God's will
when He created the universe has, however, been broken. Men and women have denied
these relationships and as a result became estranged from God, from their human
companions, from the creation in its wholeness, and from themselves.
9.2 Some Implications of these Insights
With this theological understanding, we have reflected on the state of affairs which we
have described in the previous chapters of this report. This leads us to make the following
comments:
9.2.1
Political Responsibility
The excessive priority given to growth in the dominant economic model – to the detriment
of the equilibrium of ecosystems and of solidarity with our fellow companions – is indicative
of the distance that modern society has gone away from God's plan for the creation.
At the political level we notice that today, despite the negative impact this model of
economic growth has on the environment (both social and ecological), all the governments
of member states share the view that the social problems confronting our societies can
only be solved through the recovery of growth and consumption. The ecological
dimension of the problem is in danger of becoming little more than rhetoric. This attitude
reveals a reductionist view of reality, instead of a holistic one, and a short-sightedness in
the decision-making process, instead of a long-term perspective.
71
But there is a deeper question we should ask ourselves. Does not this resorting to
economic growth as the panacea for all our social and environmental problems reflect our
refusal to accept what it is to live within the limits which are given by the relationship God
wants to establish with His creation?
9.2.2
The Role of Science and Technology
We would not dispute the decisive role which science and technology play in support of
the economy. However a caveat is necessary. The relationship which we have with the
created order through our exploitation of science and technology needs to be limited by a
recognition of the tension that exists between our liberty and our responsibility.
The present environmental crisis reflects the breakdown of the balance which should exist
between human beings and the natural environment. The fact that some have now come
to recognise that not everything that is technologically possible is necessarily acceptable is
itself a testimony – to our loss of direction and to our growing appreciation of the risks that
may be involved.
We affirm that to achieve a fair balance between liberty and responsibility we shall have to
question seriously a vision of humankind which has become too divorced from our
relationship to the created order as a whole.
9.2.3
The Churches: the Need for a Critical Self-Evaluation
If the churches are critical of our present society, we must also be critical of some of our
own traditions. An exclusively anthropocentric attitude has sometimes been taken, which
has led us to reduce the theological significance of the created order. We also need to
examine critically the foundations of a theological discourse which, in retrospect, appears
to have favoured certain aspects of the faith at the expense of others, and as a result has
served as an ideological support which has been used to justify a concept of linear growth.
9.2.4
Encouraging Signs
One of the positive consequences which results from the recognition of the importance of
the ecological dimension in the policies to be pursued in the EU is that it should put an end
to the notion that each area of policy – energy, transport, economics, biotechnology,
environment, etc. – is an autonomous unit independent of all the others. Any vision of
sustainable development must now take into account the important relationships amongst
all these fields. It is also encouraging to note, in parallel, that many developments in
science are giving us increasing evidence of the complexity and interconnectedness which
prevails in nature. The signs are that a fragmented approach of the creation which
characterised the sciences for so long is now being seriously questioned.
These developments have come at the right moment. They are now helping us to
rediscover what we had lost while we took a distorted view of the relationship between
humanity and the creation – namely the interactions which exist among all the parts of the
created order.
This interdependence is signalled in many places in the Scriptures. This is seen not only
in the first narrative of the creation (Genesis 1), but also the interrelatedness between
people and their environment in Genesis 3 and Romans 8. Here we see the world of
animals and plants becoming hostile as a result of the fall, and the notion of the whole of
72
creation which now suffers as if the pangs of childbirth. In the story of Jonah, animals are
even made part of the political programme of repentance launched by the king of Niniveh:
"No man or beast, herd or flock, is to taste food, to graze or to drink water. They are to
clothe themselves in sackcloth and call on God with all their might (Jonah 3.7)!
9.3 The Meaning of the Sabbath Rest – a Key to a Biblical Understanding of Time
9.3.1
When the churches continue to insist on the importance of keeping the Sunday
as a day apart, despite the fact that this may increasingly appear obsolete in a secularised
society, this should not be interpreted as a purely self-defensive attitude. There is more at
stake than the preservation of remaining traces of a past Christian society. Rather it
should be seen as a plea to preserve the right of each person to take time in order to put
the immediate necessities of everyday life in a broader time frame, instead of being at risk
of losing track of ourselves because of them. This "taking time" runs counter to the drive
for higher competitiveness and greater rationalisation of our production patterns. The
pressures to abolish the special place of Sundays reflect again a "reductionist" vision of
reality, where people are seen only in their productive and consuming capacity.
Again, the churches also have to be self-critical over our interpretation of "the Sabbath".
By focusing so much on the critique of the Sabbath which we find in the New Testament,
we have often missed some of its original meaning. On the other hand, some church
traditions have insisted on too legalistic an interpretation of the Sabbath. In reality, the
Sabbath occupies a central place in both Old and New Testaments; it is the heart which
animates the whole of creation. In the narrative of the creation the Sabbath is the
keystone which holds together all parts of the creation.
9.3.2
The Sabbath is the permanent invitation that God addresses to all the creation to
participate in God's joy: "And God saw that it was good" is the antiphon which
accompanies the song of creation in Genesis, and we hear it echoed in the psalms (for
example, Ps.103) and in the answer which God gives to the despair of Job, where he is
invited to listen to the symphony of the voices of all creation (Job 38-41).
Creation is to be experienced both as a free gift and an appeal for gratitude. The Sabbath
is the time set apart to celebrate this. This celebration challenges the current values of a
society which gives priority to efficiency and utility, where one has to elbow one's way
through and clench one's teeth. Because of this, the sabbath needs to gain a new status,
as a place and a time for recreation. While celebrating it, people will find the comfort and
the strength to exorcise the idols of modern society which imprison their mind.
9.3.3
Rediscovering the meaning of the sabbath gives us a way into an understanding
of time which is different from the normal alternatives of time either considered as a cycle
or as a linear development. Rather, the sabbath reminds us, week by week, that time is
discontinuous, like a rope made up of knots – marked by the Sabbath itself and by festive
occasions, liturgical celebrations, the year of Jubilee, and so on. These "knots" are each
moments of reappropriation of meaning, moments which nourish time as it unfolds.
9.3.3.1 This "sabbatical" time is squarely opposed to the way time is perceived and
experienced in modern society. This tends to assimilate men and women in a time
concept which largely depends on values like competitiveness, productivity and speed.
These characterise the way the economic organisation of our society. In Chapter VII on
Transport and Sustainable Development, we have given a clear illustration of this point.
73
Moreover, the present debate with regard to the sharing of work is also enlightening. For
many years we have been told, in the form of a promise, that the technological
breakthrough would liberate men and women from a part of their working time, opening up
the opportunity to have more time at their disposal. In order to remain competitive in the
market place, this promise is now fading rapidly away ... except for those who are
unemployed ... for whom society has no time.
9.3.3.2 This has furthermore consequences for the political decision-making process.
Political decisions which cover increasingly a complex ground need time to mature. How
can this be achieved by politicians who are all the time under constant pressure of time?
Perhaps this is the reason why a kind of blind activism features nowadays in so much of
our political activity? This is the more serious because we are now in a world where the
interrelatedness between the different fields of policy has become so much more complex
and, as a result, more vulnerable to serious problems if these relationships are overlooked.
The demand for a long-term perspective is thus more important than ever.
9.4 The Year of "Jubilee" as an Antidote to the "Steady Growth" Ideology which
Characterises Post-Industrial Society
In Leviticus chapter 25 we read about the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. Every
seventh year "the land shall be put to rest", and every fiftieth year "every man of you shall
return to his family land". The description of Jubilee given in Leviticus goes on to
encompass the relationships which ought to exist between people, land and wealth.
These principles are very relevant to the topic of this report, even if we do not know in how
far the rules set out for the jubilee year were effectively applied in Israel.
Reminiscences of the Jubilee can be seen first in the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. 61), and then
in Luke's gospel (Luke 4.21), where Jesus, in his first public address, announces the
inauguration of the Jubilee, presenting himself as both bearer and fulfiller of the good news
of liberation.
The description of Jubilee found in Leviticus is relevant to us today for the following
reasons:
a)
It is realistic in its approach to human behaviour.
b) It helps us to understand what the Bible means when it speaks about justice.
Justice is not an abstract concept; it applies primarily to relationships: relationships
are just or unjust.
c) Relationships are not restricted to people alone; they encompass all the created
order: land, water and air, animals and plants.
d) Concerning the growth concept which underlies our current economic model,
Leviticus 25 warns against the potentially destructive element which it contains for the
relationships both with people and nature. In order to oppose this destructive and
divisive element, it pleads for the introduction of mechanisms aimed at restoring just
relationships between people, land and wealth.
e)
74
It introduces the notion of limits in economic life. The land has to rest in order to
54
be "redeemed". Limits are set to acquisition. To respect these limits is consistent
with life in relationship. This is especially relevant to our model for sustainable
development (chapters III-V), which requires that economic development has to be
seen within the limits of the ecosystem.
f)
It unmasks people's inclination to acquisitiveness as a lack of confidence in
God's promises.
g) Into our present society where to question the notions of "sustained growth" and
competitiveness is almost considered as a taboo, the text of Leviticus calls upon
modern humanity to turn away from these, as forms of idolatry.
9.5 People's Responsibility Towards Future Generations
9.5.1
Every society has made decisions which have led to far-reaching ecological
changes. Today, however, our society is witnessing an unprecedented imbalance
between the economic model and the ecological system. This is due both to the scale and
the nature of the changes we are causing. Compared with the past, where the impact on
the biosphere resulting from economic decisions could in many cases be reversed, the
situation now is changing dramatically and rapidly. Many more of the decisions taken
today may bear future consequences which are irreversible. For this reason it is
necessary that today's decision-makers in the fields of politics, economics and technology
should incorporate an ecological risk factor in the decisions they have to take. The
difficulty lies in making an exact evaluation of this risk. This difficulty is made worse as
long as political and economic decision-makers take an approach to the issues involved
which is still largely mechanistic and compartmentalised, and which has not yet been able
to integrate a modern scientific understanding which has begun to see the importance of
taking into account the complexity and interconnectedness of the universe. In the light of
all this, political wisdom must surely demand a cautious approach.
9.5.2
The scale of the risk of irreversibility marks a qualitative jump. This raises a
theological question. What does this imply for the existing tension between liberty and
responsibility, which is such a feature of men and women made in the image of God?
a) One of the most harmful consequences resulting from a distortion in the balance
between liberty and responsibility is the threat this poses to future generations. We
renege on our responsibilities to our descendants. One of the results of the
globalisation of the economy is that it no longer has any political accountability. The
initial efforts to cope with this issue within the WTO are proving largely insufficient to
achieve a correct balance.
A further consequence of this is to be seen in the political realm. In losing
control of the ongoing economic developments, the existing political mechanisms are
at risk of becoming increasingly irrelevant. The agenda of the world's future is largely
set by the economic forces.
Despite the fact that a reasonable attitude would be to behave and to act as
borrowers from future generations, present economic forces seem trapped in their
54
See Lev. 25, 28 "But if the man cannot afford to buy back the property, it shall remain in the hands of
the purchaser till the year of jubilee. It shall then revert to its original owner, and he shall return to his
patrimony."
75
own rationality which forces them to march backwards into the future. Fukijama's
proclamation of "the end of history" after the fall of the Soviet Empire was largely an
interpretation of Western triumphalism, which now carries a more bitter taste if we
understand it in the context of the claims of future generations on our generation.
Realistically, we can scarcely believe that a different behaviour from the present
economic forces is possible. Where then is an answer to be found to this question?
b) A possible answer to this question may be found by spelling out what we mean
by the Christian principle of hope.
This is not a counterfeit hope, like many present forms of escapism which, in
reality, tend to wash their hands in the pseudo-spiritual waters of neutrality towards
these questions. A truly Christian understanding of hope should seek to baptise and
transform the present. Moreover, this hope is not simply for the individual. It has a
vital political dimension also. To take care of the needs of future generations we
cannot rely solely on the efforts of individuals of good will. To enable people to act in
a responsible way will require conceiving new political instruments which would be
capable of controlling the ongoing economic and technological developments.
Why do we have confidence in this concept of Christian hope?
It frees us from being overwhelmed by a fatalistic attitude towards the ecological
crisis, which a realistic appraisal of the present situation might otherwise lead us into.
It is the permanent song (from the Hebrew psalms to the American spirituals)
which has accompanied God's people in history.
It is rooted in the assurance that God is not only a God in the past and the
present. He is the One who precedes us into the future. He accompanies His
creation until the last day. Paul writes "the created universe waits with eager
expectation for God's sons and daughters to be revealed" (Rom 8.19 in an inclusive
language version).
76
NOTES
77
78
Members of the EECCS Ecology-Economy Working Group
Christian Anz:
Ecumenical Association for Church and Society/
Brussels
Donald Bruce:
Society Religion and Technology Project of the
Church of Scotland/ Edinburgh
Peter Crossman:
European
Ecumenical
Development / Brussels
Hans Diefenbacher:
Forschungstätte
der
Studiengemeinschaft/ Heidelberg
Marc Lenders (secretary):
European Ecumenical Commission for Church
and Society/ Brussels
Kees Nieuwerth:
Raad van Kerken in Nederland / Amersfoort
Rüdiger Noll (observer):
Conference of European Churches/ Geneva
Herman Noordegraaf:
Multidisciplinary Centre for Church and Society/
Driebergen
Hans-Balz Peter:
Institute for Social Ethics, and Swiss Federation of
Protestant Churches/ Bern
David Pickering:
Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland, and
United Reformed Church/ London
Barbara Schmidt-Klügmann:
Euro-Network
Gemünden
Helmut von Verschuer (moderator):
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland/ Hannover
Transport
Commission
and
on
Evangelischen
Environment/
Text edited by Marc Lenders
with help from Véronique Dessart and Donald Bruce
This report is the product of the whole working group but particular individuals have
contributed the major material for the various chapters: Chapter I: Marc Lenders; Chapter
II: Christian Anz and Herman Noordegraaf; Chapter III: Hans Diefenbacher and Kees
Nieuwerth; Chapter IV: Herman Noordegraaf; Chapter V: Hans Diefenbacher and Kees
Nieuwerth; Chapter VI: Donald Bruce and David Pickering; Chapter VII: Barbara SchmidtKlügmann; Chapter VIII: Peter Crossman; Chapter IX: Marc Lenders.
79