Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
sociometabolic transitions in human history and present
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 15, 2022 516 likes •1.01k views

Presentation to the Third ALTER-Net Summerschool, Peyresq, Alpes de Haute-Provence, September 2008 Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity Marina Fischer-Kowalski Institute of Social Ecology

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity

Marina Fischer-Kowalski Institute of Social Ecology

IFF Vienna, Klagenfurt University, Austria

Presentation to the Third ALTER-Net Summerschool, Peyresq, Alpes de Haute-Provence, September 2008

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 2

Outline

  • 1. Conceptual clarifications: social metabolism and metabolic

profiles, sociometabolic regimes, transitions

  • 2. key features of the historical transition from the agrarian to

the industrial regime

  • 3. patterns of ongoing transformations in the South, in relation

to the historical Northern transition, and in the context of global interdepency

  • 4. How does all this relate to biodiversity, and to

understanding trajectories of change?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 3

Social metabolism – metabolic profile

  • Organismic analogy: any social system, like an organism, requires a

steady flow of energy and matter to reproduce itself

  • How much, and what kind of energy and matter it requires, is deeply

built into the structures and functioning of the social system, and beyond certain points hard to change (metabolic profile).

  • The toolbox and indicators of material & energy flow analysis (MEFA)

match, in units of tonnes and joules, the toolbox of macroeconomic accounting, in monetary units.

  • The social system‘s material and energy requirements, both on the input

side (resource extraction) and on the output side (wastes and emissions) constitute pressures upon the environment, and induce changes.

  • Social metabolism: hinge concept/methodology between socioeconomic

systems and ecological systems

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 4

Model of material social metabolism (according to MEFA)

Stocks Domestic Environment Economic Processing DE DPO

Air, Water Water Vapour

Imports Exports

Immigrants Emigrants

DMI DE=domestic extraction DMI=domestic material input DPO=domestic processed output DMC= domestic material consumpti

  • n =DMI -

exports

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 5

composition of materials input (DMC)

material input EU15 (tonnes, in %)

Biomass construction minerals industr.minerals fossil fuels

total: 17 tonnes/cap*y

source: EUROSTAT 2003

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 6

Composition of DPO: Wastes and emissions (outflows)

D PO t o air ( C O2 ) D PO t o air* D PO t o land ( wast e) D PO t o land ( dissipat ive use) D PO t o wat er

Source: WRI et al., 2000; own calculations unweighted means of DPO per capita for A, G, J, NL, US; metric tons

DPO total: 16 tons per capita

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 7

Sociometabolic regimes

The theory of sociometabolic regimes (Sieferle) claims that, in world history, certain modes of human production (Ricardo, Marx) and subsistence (Adam Smith, Diamond) can be broadly distinguished that share, at whatever point in time and irrespective of biogeographical conditions, certain fundamental systemic characteristics, derived from the way they utilize and thereby modify nature. Key constraint: energy system (sources of energy and main technologies of energy conversion). Result: characteristic metabolic profile (range of materials and energy use per capita)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 8

Sociometabolic regimes can be characterized by ...

  • 1. a metabolic profile, that is a certain structure and level of energy and

materials use (range per capita of human population)

  • 2. secured by certain infrastructures and a range of technologies, as well

as

  • 3. certain economic and governance structures.
  • 4. A certain pattern of demographic reproduction, human life time and

labor structure, and

  • 5. a certain pattern of environmental impact: land-use, resource

exploitation, pollution and impact on the biological evolution

  • 6. Key regulatory positive and negative feedbacks between the socio-

economic system and its natural environment that mould and constrain the reproduction of the socioecological regime.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 9

Transitions between sociometabolic regimes – research strategy

?

transition

Hunters and gatherers Agrarian Industrial Socio-metabolic regimes Sustainable ? Postindustrial? Knowledge society?

Source: Sieferle et al. 2006, modified

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 10

Transitions

Within regimes gradualism and path dependency prevail: the system moves along a path, „maturing“ into a certain direction, often towards a „high level equilibrium trap“ (Boserup 1965, Sieferle 2003), until:

– that path is either interrupted from outside (such as: Mongol invasion, major volcano eruption), or – the system implodes / collapses, and possibly falls back to an earlier stage of that same path (Diamond 2005) – or particular (contingent) conditions allow for a transition into another sociometabolic regime

Transitions between regimes can be turbulent and chaotic; they are usually irreversible; there is no predetermined outcome or directionality.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 11

Part 2: The transition from the agrarian to the industrial socioecological regime in history (1600-2000)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 12

the energy transition 1700-2000: from biomass to fossil fuels

Share of energy sources in primary energy consumption (DEC)

United Kingdom

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Biomass Coal OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Source: Social Ecology Data Base

biomass coal Oil / gas / nuc

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 13

the energy transition 1700-2000 - latecomers

Share of energy sources in primary energy consumption (DEC)

United Kingdom

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Biomass Coal OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Austria

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Biomass Coal OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Japan

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Biomass Coal OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Source: Social Ecology Data Base

Japan Austria UK

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 14

Increasing population (density) 1600-2000

Population density (UK incl. Ireland) (cap/km2)

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

UK & Ireland Japan Austria

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 15

Reduction of agricultural population, and gain in income 1600-2000

Share of agricultural population

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 6 0 0 1 6 5 0 1 7 0 0 1 7 5 0 1 8 0 0 1 8 5 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 5 0 2 0 0 0

GDP per capita [1990US$]

5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 1 6 0 0 1 6 5 0 1 7 0 0 1 7 5 0 1 8 0 0 1 8 5 0 1 9 0 0 1 9 5 0 2 0 0 0

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 16

Longterm increase in economic energy effciency (1900-2005)

Energy Efficiency ($ GDP / GJ primary energy)

  • 20

40 60 80 100 120 140 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 [$/GJ] Austria United Kingdom Japan

Efficiency increases: Average 11 % per decade, or roughly 1% annually.

Source: Social Ecology DB

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 17

Increasing economic material efficiency (while metabolic profile fairly constant)

EU-15 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 DMC Population GDP Resource Productivity (GDP/DMC)

Social Ecology DB

On average 20 - 23% increase in economic material effciency per decade

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 18

Metabolic profiles of the agrarian and industrial regime: transition = explosion

Agrarian Industrial Factor Energy use (DEC) per capita [GJ/cap] 40-70 150-400 3-5 Material use (DMC) per capita [t/cap] 3-6 15-25 3-5 Population density [cap/km²] <40 < 400 3-10 Agricultural population [%] >80% <10% 0.1 Energy use (DEC) per area [GJ/ha] <30 < 600 10-30 Material use (DMC) per area [t/ha] <2 < 50 10-30 Biomass (share of DEC) [%] >95 10-30 0.1-0.3

Source: Social Ecology DB

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 19

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0

SangSaeng, Thailand 1998 Trinket, Nicobars 2000 Törbel, Switzerland 1875 Austria 1830 UK 1884* Austria 1991 Germany 1991 Japan 1991 Netherlands 1991 USA 1991 Sweden 1991 UK 1991

t/capita Biomass Minerals Fossils Products

Metabolic profiles by sociometabolic regimes (DMC/capita)

Agrarian Societies Industrial Societies Means

* UK 1884: DMI data

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 20

Historical sociometabolic regimes

Agrarian regime:

  • 1. Solar energy, resource base flow
  • f biomass.
  • 2. infrastructures decentralized. key

technology: use of land through agriculture;

  • 3. subsistence economies & market;

if more complex, strong hierarchical differentiation;

  • 4. tendency of population growth

and increasing workload;

  • 5. potentially sustainable, but soil

erosion, wildlife / habitat reduction;

  • 6. distinct limits for physical growth

(low energy density); Industrial regime:

  • 1. Fossil fuel based; exploitation of

large stocks;

  • 2. centralized infrastructures, industrial

technologies;

  • 3. capitalism and functional

differentiation;

  • 4. thrifty reproduction, prolonged

socialization, somewhat lesser workload;

  • 5. large-scale pollution (air, water and

soil), alteration of atmospheric composition, depletion of mineral resources, biodiversity reduction;

  • 6. abolishment of limits to physical

growth; decoupling of land and energy and labour;

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 21

Part 3: Ongoing transitions

  • Is „development“ such a transition from an agrarian to an

industrial regime?

– does it follow the same historical trajectory? – Does it lead to similar outcomes, that is for example a factor 3-4 increase in material and energy use? – What are the relevant framework conditions influencing these transitions? How do they differ from history?

  • Is a contemporary industrial metabolic profile possible for all

and everywhere?

– What are indications of local / regional constraints? – What are the global constraints? – What are the ways out?

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 22

Country classification (N=165 countries for the year 2000)

Development status: according to UN classification; differentiation between industrialized countries (incl. Transition Markets) and developing countries (all others; wide range from least developed to newly industrialized countries) Population Density: low and high density countries (50 persons/km² as dividing line) Length of history of agrarian colonization: “Old World” countries versus “New World” countries

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 23

Country classification (165 countries worldwide, by the year 2000)

Developing low density –

  • ld world: Arid countries in Asia

and Africa (N = 41)

Industrial low density – old world: Former Soviet Union,

Scandinavian countries. (N = 15)

Population density low (<50/km2) OLD WORLD

Developing low density – new world: South America.

(N = 22)

Industrial low density - new world: North America,

Australia, New Zealand. (N= 4)

Population density low (<50/km2) NEW WORLD

Developing high density

Most of S-E Asia incl. India, China, Central America, some African countries. (N= 65)

Industrial high density

European countries, Japan, South Korea (N=30)

Population density high (>50/km2) Developing Industrial I - Hd I – Ld - nw I – Hd - ow D - Hd D – Ld - nw D – Hd - ow

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 24

Unequal distribution of global resources (for the year 2000)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% S hare of population S hare of territory S hare of G D P D - Ld - ow D - Ld - nw D - H d I - Ld - ow I - Ld - nw I - H d

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 25

Transition tracks: Population and Economy (2000)

Population density [cap/km2] Agricultural population [%] GDP [US$ PPP/cap] I - Hd 149 9% 18,364 I – Ld - nw 12 2% 30,540 I – Ld - ow 12 14% 6,333 D - Hd 140 56% 2,866 D – Ld - nw 19 19% 6,312 D – Ld - ow 17 52% 2.802 World 45 42% 6,665 China 134 67% 3,491 Australia 2 5% 24,090

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 26

Metabolic profiles in 2000: Material and Energy use per capita

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries Material use (DMC) per capita [t/cap ] Energy use (DEC) per capita [GJ/cap ] Electricity use per capits [GJ/cap ] I - Hd 15 190 22 I – Ld - nw 29 443 52 I – Ld - ow 14 192 20 D - Hd 6 49 3 D – Ld - nw 15 131 7 D – Ld - ow 6 76 4 World 10 102 9 China 8 75 4 Australia 42 470 40

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 27

Metabolic profiles in 2000: Material and Energy use per capita

M ate rial us e (D M C ) pe r ca p ita [t/cap ] E ne rgy us e (D EC ) pe r capita [G J /cap] Ele ctric ity us e pe r capits [G J /cap] I - H d 15 190 22 I – Ld - nw 29 443 52 I – Ld - ow 14 192 20 D - H d 6 49 3 D – Ld - nw 15 131 7 D – Ld - ow 6 76 4 W orld 10 102 9 C hina 8 75 4 A ustra lia 42 470 40

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 28

Environmental pressures 2000

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB

Conclusion: Regional environmental pressure already high in high density developing countries

E n e rg y us e (D E C ) pe r h a

[G J / ha ]

M a te ria l u se (D M C ) pe r h a

[t/ ha ]

H A N P P a p p ro p ria te d p la n t e n e rg y

[% ] I - H d 2 8 4 2 3 4 2 % I – L d - n w 5 4 4 1 9 % I – L d - o w 2 4 2 1 5 % D - H d 6 9 9 4 0 % D – L d - nw 2 5 3 1 4 % D – L d - o w 1 3 1 1 5 % W o r ld 4 6 4 2 2 % C h ina 7 3 1 0 3 8 % A ust ra lia 1 2 1 1 1 %

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 29

Developing countries: Achieve the same p/c energy consumption as industrial countries of same density class

Convergence scenario: World energy consumption (DEC) by the year 2050

  • 600

1.200 1.800 DEC 2000 DEC 2050 [EJ]

High denisty developing Low density Africa/Asia Low density New world Former Soviet Union Old world industrial core New world industrial core

Industrial countries: p/c energy consumption

  • f 2000 – 30%

(high density: 135 Gj/cap, low density: 310 Gj/cap) Scenario assumptions for the year 2050

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 30

Additional factor explaining variation within regimes: population density

  • High population density is associated with lower resource

use (about factor 2), but the relationship remains complex.

– If there are few resources, such as very arid land or cold climate, there is a limit to the number of people that can be sustained under agrarian conditions (>low density + low resource consumption) – If a few people come to a rich environment, such as to a newly conquered continent, they will generously consume (>low density + high resource consumption). – If many people populate a rich environment, resources will become scarce, but each person will need less for a good standard of living because of economies of scale (>high density + low resource consumption)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 31

Part 4: How does all that relate to biodiversity??? (some loose ideas, based in part on RP Sieferle (2003), and Social Ecology team work)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 32

Principal mechanisms

  • Impacts of social metabolism:

– Outcompeting other species of (certain) general life sustaining resources, such as land, water and plant biomass – Pollution of environmental media by wastes and emissions – Creation of new opportunities and niches

  • Impacts of human colonization strategies:

– Interventions into ecosystems (biotopes) – Interventions into organisms / populations – Interventions into evolution

> Both depend on sociometabolic regime!

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 33

Colonization of natural systems

Social system Natural system Colonized system

Work / energy invested

Resources / services gained

Change induced

through colonization

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 34

Colonization intensity of terrestrial ecosystems: HANPP

Society

Harvest of biomass for food, energy, fibre, etc. Agricultural work, fuel for tractors, energy for fertilizer, etc.

NPP0 NPPt HANPP

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 35

Definition of HANPP

Rationale: HANPP measures changes in the availability of trophic energy for wild-living heterotrophic organisms in ecosystems induced by human activities

Some papers on HANPP: Vitousek et al. 1986. BioScience 36, 363- 373. Wright 1990. Ambio 19, 189-194. Haberl 1997. Ambio 26(3), 143-146. Haberl et al. 2001. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15, 929-942. Imhoff et al. 2004. Nature 429, 870-873.

NPP of the potential natural vegetation = NPP0 NPP = remaining in ecosystems after harvest

t

Net primary production (NPP) [tC/yr] NPP of the actually prevailing vegetation = NPPact HANPP NPP : NPP changes induced by soil degradation, sealing, and ecosystem changes

LUCC

NPP = harvested by humans

h

HANPP = NPP +NPP HANPP = NPP - NPP

LUCC h t

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 36

The species-energy hypothesis

  • Basic claim: The number of

species is positively related to the flow of energy in an ecosystem.

  • Corollary: If humans reduce

energy flow (e.g., through HANPP), then species richness will decline.

  • Notes

– Can explain species diversity gradient from equator to poles. – Not undisputed. Competing (complementary) hypotheses exist (e.g., intermediate disturbance hypothesis). HANPP

Brown, J.H. (1981) Am. Zool. 21, 877-888. Gaston, K.L. (2000) Nature 405, 220-227. Hutchinson, G.E. (1959) Am. Nat. 93, 145-159. Rapson, G.L. et al. (1997) J. Ecol. 85, 99-100. Waide, R.B. et al. (1999) Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30, 257-300. Wright, D.H. (1983) Oikos 41, 495-506. Wright, D.H. (1990) Ambio 19, 189-194.

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 37

Empirical studies support the HANPP / biodiversity hypothesis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 20 10

  • 2

4x10

  • 2

Y = -1.975 +0.485 X R² =0 .549, p < 0.0001

i)

all heterotrophs NPPt

0.1 1 10 1 10 100

Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X

2

  • Adj. R

2 = 0.69

breeding bird species richness NPPt [MJ/m²*a]

Case study 1: Correlation between NPPt and autotroph species richness (5 taxa) on 38 plots sized 600x600 m, East Austria

Haberl et al., 2004, Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 102, p213ff

Case study 2: Correlation between NPPt and breeding bird richness in Austria, 328 randomly chosen 1x1 km squares.

Haberl et al., 2005. Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 110, p119ff

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 38

Hunters & gatherers

  • Metabolism:

– Risk of regional eradication of prey species (particularly large herbivores). Particularly high in „pioneer situations“ (new immigration). [example: eradication of North and middle American megafauna?] Cultural regulation through hunting, area and food taboos, leisure culture, control of population growth (Sahlins) – barely pollution, no particular niches

  • Colonization:

– Mainly self-colonization (sex and reproduction regulation, body tattooos …) – Sometimes: use of fire in hunting [example: modification of Australian flora & fauna by aborigines]

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 39

Agrarian societies

  • Metabolism:

– Metabolism (almost) completely based on local biomass; monopolization of terrestrial ecosystems for human and livestock nutrition (gradual eradication

  • f forest – „clear the land“. But dependence on functionally diverse land

cover). Eradication of competitors (large carnivores). – More or less closed cycles, barely pollution – Great time for parasites: dense homogenous man, animal and plant populations create new niches for plants, animals and microorganisms (McNeill, Cohen, Crosby)

  • Colonization:

– Colonization of terrestrial ecosystems: modification of plant and soil species. Increase of erosion. [cult. measures for erosion control] – Breeding and importing of functional species. Risk of bioinvasions. – Self-colonization for production of labor power (many children), diligence and

  • thriftiness. Move themselves into lock-in of high population density, high

yields per area, low labor effciency. (Boserup, Netting)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 40

Industrial society

  • Metabolism:

– Energy base = fossil fuels, no competitors (relief on land and biomass). Nutritional base: much more animal protein, increase in

  • livestock. Energy surplus allows mobilisation and transport of huge

amounts of materials, restructuring of earth surface and water bodies. – Large scale pollution; local impacts can be controlled, global impacts (CO2) not (yet?) – Niches: diversity of plant and animal pets, protected areas. Less aggressive attitude towards „useless“ plant and animal life.

  • Colonization:

– New strategies to invervene in organisms and evolution (medicine and bio-technologies)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 41

Results: HDI vs. Energy

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975

HDI

Energy R2 = 0,85 – 0,90

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 42

Results: HDI vs. Carbon

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 R2 = 0,75 – 0,85 Carbon

HDI

2005

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 43

How does the energy threshold compare to global energy per capita?

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 44

And how does the carbon threshold compare to carbon emissions per capita?

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 45

Global energy use

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 46

Global carbon emissions

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 47

Global Sustainability – a Nobel Cause Potsdam Memorandum 10.10.2007

„Is there a ‚third way‘ between environmental destabilization and persistent underdevelopment? Yes, there is, but this way has to bring about, rapidly and ubiquitously, a thorough re-invention of our industrial metabolism – the Great Transformation.“