Towards Zero Emissions -- The Conference Mandate

• Is the concept that goes by the name "zero emissions" possibly a useful one for research and policy purposes?
• Can we clarify with more precision exactly what is meant by the term?
• If indeed it is determined to be a valid target for policy and practice, what are the specific processes, the concrete acts, by which we can move if not to, at least toward, "zero emissions"?

• "End-of-Pipe" pollution control technologies and practices (roughly our current stage in the most advanced industrial economies), followed by a transitional stage of what has come to be known as
• "Clean Production Technologies" (an intermediate category in this hierarchy which is known by many other names as well), and eventually -- and this is what is of most interest to us -- leading to a stage which can be called
• "Product-to-Service Transformation" -- a considerably more radical and far-reaching generation involving end-user changes as well as altered production technologies, which individually and collectively can move toward greatly reduced inputs and resource consumption.

It is the third and latest of these 'eco-efficiency' technology generations that is the main concern of this meeting, the first two generations being extensively covered in other places and sources (see the various bibliographies in the working papers in the Electronic Library of the meeting, as well as the very large number of linked sources that are indicated throughout this Web site).

With these last product-to-service transformations firmly in his sights, Robert Ayres has submitted to the conference a background paper entitled Toward Zero Emissions: Is There a Feasible Path? Introduction to ZERI, Phase II which opens with the following synopsis:

Zero Emissions is an attractive slogan. It has been adopted, for instance, by the UN University. The question arises, inevitably: Is it a realistic target? If so, in what sense?

Wastes and emissions are part of the product life cycle; indeed they are the final fate of most extractive raw materials. The law of conservation of mass holds. It implies that zero emissions is equivalent to zero extraction i.e. final closure of the materials cycle. Ecological sustainability at the global level is not consistent with continuously increasing extraction, processing, consumption and waste emissions by individual households or firms.

This stark fact implies that economic growth must, in the long run, either be disconnected from material consumption or stop altogether. Since the latter outcome would be socially unacceptable, the former must become a major objective of environmental and economic policy at the government level. But it must also become a core strategy for firms. Which brings us to the following questions that I believe to be worthy of close consideration:

Is there a coherent "zero-emissions" strategy at the firm level that makes economic sense? What role must government play to encourage firms to adopt such a strategy? What must governments do to increase the scope of profitable zero-emissions strategies (for firms and other technology-deploying units)?

In the language of economists, this challenge sets the objective of maximizing value added per unit resource input. This idea is essentially equivalent to maximizing resource productivity at the firm level (taking into account scarce environmental resources as well as energy and raw materials), rather than simply minimizing wastes or pollution associated with a given product. A more specific approach was suggested at the second Antwerp Eco-efficiency Workshop of the WBCSD [Ayres et al 1995; Fussler 1996]. It emphasizes seven objectives:

1. Minimize the material intensity of goods and services
2. Minimize the energy intensity of goods and services
3. Minimize toxic dispersion
4. Enhance material recyclability
5. Maximize sustainable use of renewable resources
6. Extend product durability
7. Increase the service intensity of goods and services

1. Providing real services based on the customer's needs.
2. Assuring economic viability for the firm.
3. Adopting a systems (life-cycle) viewpoint with respect to both processes and products.
4. Recognizing, at the firm's policy level, that the environment is finite, the "carrying capacity" of the Earth is limited, and that the firm bears some responsibility regarding the environment.

In conclusion, for now, the major points that we wish to bring to your attention can be summarized succinctly as follows.

First, long term sustainability depends on massive reductions in the generation of waste and pollution. This, in turn, implies a comparable reduction in the extraction and processing of virgin raw materials, and a gradual closure of the materials cycle. The change must be initiated, and implemented first, in the industrial countries which now account for most of the world's material and energy consumption.

Second, this program of waste reduction and dematerialization need not be impossibly costly. There are major opportunities for near-term savings at the process level, even given current energy prices. These opportunities would be substantially increased in the event of higher energy prices, whether due to government policy (such as a carbon tax) or due to political events, or simply from gradual exhaustion of the cheapest international sources.

Third, there are even larger - albeit longer term - opportunities for dematerialization at the product level. In particular, we stress the technical opportunities for increasing the lifetime value provided by durable goods, through redesign for increased operating efficiency and recovery of asset value by reuse, reconditioning and remanufacturing. However, it appears that these opportunities are not likely to be exploited as long as original equipment manufacturers are able to avoid responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and ultimate disposal. Only when these costs are all born by the same organizational entity - a service provider - will the incentive system work to minimize materials and energy use.

Finally, there will be enormous opportunities for increased resource productivity at the systems level. The example of the transportation system has been discussed briefly to illustrate the point. Clearly, major social innovations will be required before these opportunities can be achieved in practice.

The full text of the paper by Robert Ayres from which the above has been abstracted is available in the meeting's electronic library under the title, "Toward Zero Emissions: Is There a Feasible Path? Introduction to ZERI Phase II"

Back to top

Track Home

Author Bio

Your Comments

Send E-mail

Go to TeleConference home