Environmentally Sound Technology for Sustainable Development

Advanced Technology Assessment System

Department of Economic and Social Development United Nations New York

Issue 7, 1992

Thomas J. Goreau

Technology assessment methodologies: An analytical framework for environmentally

sound technology assessment

This paper critically examines the concept of sustainability and concludes that it is widely
used in ways that are meaningless unless a quantitative measure of sustainability is used.
Many forms of sustainability are neither optimal nor desirable.

Introduction

To assess the effects of technology on the environment requires objective and quantitative
measures; only then can the real costs of remedying human damage to the environment
be efficiently paid. Energy and environmental transactions exchange carbon dioxide, just
as economic transactions exchange monetary value. If accounting of global carbon
exchanges is linked to global financial accounting, changes in biomass and biological
productivity could provide quantitative criteria for evaluating the environmental costs and
benefits of technological choices. When combined with "the polluter pays" principle, they
provide criteria for efficiently internalizing the environmental costs of technology or for
assessing action targets designed to halt climate change. The costs of global
environmental sustainability will be minimized if sustainability is achieved rapidly, and if the
total benefits are maximized through intelligent use of science and technology in building
sustainable endogenous research and development capacity in environmentally sound
technologies, especially in the tropics.

Components of sustainability

The concept of sustainable development has come to be widely accepted as development

that docs not compromise the future for the sake of the present (1), yet there is uncertainty
as to how environmental sustainability can be identified or measured. Assessment of
various science and technology policy options in terms of environmental sustainability
requires tools to evaluate the effects of our actions on natural as wel1 as social milieu (2).
Sustainability is often considered in terms of several components--environmental,
ecological, economic, social and cultural.

Social, cultural and political structures can change much more rapidly than environmental
and ecological patterns. The cultural and social effects of technology are not easily
predicted, and are usually evaluated post hoc in terms of how technology use fits into or
changes existing sociocultural structures. The metaphysical criteria that influence any
valuation of social and cultural structures are not easily amenable to objective analysis.
Sustainability of socio-cultural practices may not even be desirable if existing ones are
inequitable towards currently living individuals or future generations.
In contrast to social and cultural components, the economic, ecological and environmental
components can in principle be evaluated by quantitative tools such as systems theory,
economic input-output accounting (3), and appropriate models. To quantify economic
sustainability, our health, wealth and quality of life are assessed by considering population
life spans, per capita income, savings, costs of goods and services, and quality
parameters including non-monetarized social services and equitable access to resources.
This paper argues that environmental and ecological sustainability, in an analogy to
economic sustainability, can be assessed by analogous analytical tools if sufficient data
are available on carbon input to and output from the atmosphere.

Environmental and ecological sustainability

Economic sustainability is a concept with clear quantitative implications; it can only be

realized if one spends less than the interest on one's accumulated capital (4).
Sustainability can also be achieved by spending all the interest, but this allows for no
growth, and the most prudent course in the long run is to delay consumption and invest as
much as possible to increase future income. If one discounts the interests of future
generations, one can spend more than the interest and deplete the capital, but this is
unsustainable, and the wealth will steadily vanish. Sustainable development means that
renewable resources can be managed in the same way as money, thereby preventing a
decrease in resources, and preferably an increase for future generations. Environmental
sustainability implies avoiding degradation of biomass and bio-productivity—major
components of our "natural capital".

Ecological sustainability is harder to evaluate than environmental sustainability. It depends

on the complexity and quality of the biological productivity of each species in a particular
habitat, not just on the total quantity, because each species has a unique role and value. A
potential criterion for ecological sustainability could be the total diversity of hereditary
information genetically encoded in the nucleic acid of species and individuals. Organisms
are not fixed in an unvarying habitat, and in an ever-changing world they must constantly
adapt to deal with environmental change and keep up with their competitors—running just
to stay in place.

Variety is the key to the ecological survival of organisms and species in a changing and
unpredictable world; it is literally the spice of life. Having a few of each species subsisting
in a zoo, botanical garden or deep freeze is not enough; we should seek to maintain the
widest potential range of new combinations of genetic and species diversity. Preservation
of germ plasma allows a small fraction of each species to be sustained, but most of the
adaptation and evolutionary requirements for adapting to new conditions is lost. If
conservation of genetic information is an adequate criterion for ecological sustainability,
this would require a greatly expanded taxonomic, genetic and biochemical study of the
species around us

Sustainable and unsustainable resources

In the long run, the welfare of the human species depends on how profitably it manages its
resources. Resources can be classified according to whether they are renewable, that is
capable of being recycled, resupplied endlessly, or grown continually—or non-renewable,
that is incapable of being replaced naturally or through human action (see figure 1). Of
course, renewable resources such as trees or fish may be unreliably managed, managed
to grow, or be maintained at a steady state. For non-renewable resources such as gold or
iron, every unit ruined depletes future stocks, so the wealth generated should be invested
in such a way that it provides adequate future returns and increases in total value.
Renewable resources should be managed so that their productivity grows, or at least does
not decline.

Figure 1. Resource sustainability index Note: These relative natural resource sustainability
indexes are defined as the proportion of resource potentially used per unit of time by
current technologies. Positive values indicate increase, negative values indicate depletion,
and zero indicates no change. Uranium refers to conventional nuclear reactors, and
plutonium to production from uranium in breeder reactors. Of these natural resources, only
biomass can be easily managed to increase, decrease, or be held at some constant value.
Sustainability indexes shown are relative, and apply only to the quantity of available
resource supplies. Additional financial and quality criteria are needed to evaluate the
sustainability of each resource with regard to cost and the effects on the environment and
the biosphere. These criteria place more stringent limits on overall resource sustainability
than quantity alone.

The sustainability of a resource can be defined as the fraction consumed or produced

each year, or the inverse of the time it will take to exhaust or double that resource at
current consumption rates. Resources that are being depleted will have a negative
sustainability index, so a resource that is completely consumed in a year would have an
index value of minus one. A strictly sustainable resource-—solar energy for example, does
not change with use; such a resource would have an index value of zero. A resource that
increased over time would have a positive sustainability index. Sustainability as defined in
this index takes into account only the quantity of a resource, not its cost. Economic
sustainability may therefore result in more stringent constraints on the use of a resource
than availability alone.

Most non-fuel mineral resources are sufficiently large to have fairly small negative
sustainability indexes. The world's largest iron mine, Serra do Carajas, in Para, Brazil,
would have a life-span of 400 years at the current rate of use. Fossil fuels are less
sustainable. Oil and coal are sufficient to last roughly 100 and 300 years, respectively, at
current consumption rates; producing sustainability indexes of approximately -0.01 and
-0.003. Oil and coal are not strictly speaking non-renewable as they are being slowly
formed from the deep burial of organic material in sediment. As the average age of oil and
coal is about 100 and 300 million years, respectively, sustainable use would amount to
about one millionth of current consumption.

Alternative energy sources can a]so be considered in terms of sustainability. If nuclear

power is obtained from enriched uranium nuclear reactors, the total amount of energy
available is roughly comparable to that of oil, and it could be a major energy source for
about a century. If uranium is converted by breeder reactors into plutonium nuclear fuel,
hundreds of times more energy can be obtained. This would be a more sustainable energy
supply than uranium or fossil fuels. Since sustainability as defined here refers only to
resource quantity, it does not take into account factors such as nuclear waste disposal,
reactor decommissioning, accidents or nuclear terrorism, factors that could limit plutonium
energy use more than its availability or technical feasibility.

In comparison, direct solar energy conversion is completely renewable and will continue to
be available regardless of how much is used. Its sustainability index is zero. It can be
tapped sustainable through photovoltaic cell conversion to electricity and the use of non-
imaging optics to generate sunlight intensities greater than at the surface of the sun (5).
Both techniques can be applied to less-polluting industrial processes in the sunny tropics.
Photovoltaic energy can also be used for electrolysis of seawater. The mineral precipitate
from this process can be used for prefabricated construction, shoreline protection, and
artificial reef frameworks, using techniques developed by W. Hilbertz (6). It may be
necessary to apply such techniques on a large scale in tropical countries if coral reefs are
to be protected from elevated ocean temperatures.

Biomass-derived energies are a special case, in that their degree of sustainability is the
direct result of human actions. Biomass can be managed unsustainably by cutting, burning
and not replanting; or managed sustainability by cutting and burning only as much as is
planted and grown; or reforested in a way that enables the resource to continue to
increase in magnitude. The index of sustainability can be positive, zero, or negative. The
wisest course for such a resource, as with money, is to allow it to meet current needs and
to grow to provide more wealth for future generations. Sadly, the biological resources
around us have rarely been treated in that fashion. But the potential rewards are very great
if biodiversity is conserved and modern biological techniques are employed to enhance the
magnitude and value of such resources.

Biomass and productivity as quantitative criteria

If all technological processes were evaluated according to their quantitative influences on

biomass and bio-productivity, a common criteria would be available by which to evaluate
and manage those processes' environmental effects. Carbon dioxide serves as a common
exchange medium that links the biosphere, the climate system, and global energy use. By
quantifying these carbon tlows, carbon dioxide can serve as an environmental currency.
Most anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gas emissions consist of carbon dioxide;
therefore, stabilizing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be central to
containing global warming. This can be achieved at relatively low cost if biomass and
biological activity are increased and then stabilized (7) concurrent with an improvement in
energy efficiency and a switch to less-polluting energy sources (8).

Increasing biomass by halting deforestation and replanting only a modest part of areas
already cleared, degraded or abandoned, on a scale adequate to absorb the current
atmospheric increase, could stabilize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for several
decades (9) until fossil fuels can be replaced by non-carbon-dioxide-producing energy
sources. Only photovoltaic and plutonium breeder reactors have the total potential
capacity to supply required future energy levels. Both nuclear and photovoltaic energy
sources are now too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. It is likely that the costs of
photovoltaic cells will sharply decrease with mass production but the costs of containing
radioactive waste and decommissioning old reactors have steadily escalated. Nuclear
energy produces long-lived radioactive pollution, and is unlikely to be a widespread energy
source in third world countries for economic and political reasons. Solar energy would
appear to be the most sustainable long-term option for tropical areas if solar cells can be
mass-produced and if the production of renewable biological materials is expanded.

Total biomass and biological productivity are measures of the wealth and health of earth's
natural resources, and they can be readily measured quantitatively if the resources are
made available. Each needs to be conserved or increased for different reasons.
Biomass is a major carbon store, and if it could be increased world wide, carbon dioxide
would be removed from the atmosphere. If the rate of biomass build-up were increased to
a level equal to the current net build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the
concentration of the gas in the atmosphere would be stabilized. Numerous estimates
suggest that this is technically feasible and could be accomplished at a cost of a few
dollars a ton of carbon converted into biomass (10). If that cost were to be divided by per
capita fossil fuel carbon emissions, it might amount to around 15 dollars a person a year at
United States emission rates (the highest), 2 dollars at Jamaican rates (close to the world-
wide mean), and less than 1 dollar at Indian, Chinese, or African rates. The carbon
removal costs would be far less than some taxes now being proposed to increase the price
of fossil fuels and thereby reduce demand (11).

The rate at which the biosphere exchanges carbon dioxide with the atmosphere must also
be protected as biomass is increased. Most carbon dioxide taken up by plants during
photosynthesis is not accumulated in biomass but is fairly quickly reconverted to carbon
dioxide and returned to the atmosphere by respiration and decomposition. These
biological carbon flows through the atmosphere are very large compared to fossil fuel
combustion. Their global magnitude—the sum of the metabolism of all ecosystems—is the
major control on the lifetime of new carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel
combustion. When biological productivity is degraded, fossil fuel carbon will remain in the
atmosphere longer, and absorb more heat (12). On the other hand, an increase in
biological productivity would reduce carbon dioxide's atmospheric lifetime and total thermal
effect.

A comparison of the forests of the tropics and those of the boreal zone is helpful. Both
need to be preserved and enhanced, but for different reasons. Siberian and Canadian
trees grow very slowly, but are very efficient at converting most of the carbon they remove
from the atmosphere into long-lasting woody biomass. Because of their high biomass
carbon, rich soil, and the huge areas they cover, these trees are one of the largest long
term carbon stores of any ecosystem. Amazonian forests, by comparison, take up more
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per unit area per unit of time, but most of it is
promptly returned to the atmosphere through respiration during the hot humid nights. The
fraction that becomes biomass is not taken up by long-lasting wood biomass but by short-
lived leaf, flower and fruit biomass that is recycled by birds, animals, insects (especially
ants and termites) and decomposing organisms, thus returning more carbon to the
atmosphere within days or weeks. Amazonian and other tropical rain forests are therefore
the most important in terms of their productivity and role in recycling the atmosphere.

The stabilization of atmospheric composition and the halting of climate change are major
components of global environmental sustainability. They require that any reduction in
biomass and biological productivity caused by technological activities be balanced by
increases elsewhere. To halt climate change we must ensure that quantitative restoration
of ecosystem biomass and productivity damaged by our actions takes place in affected
areas or elsewhere. The "not in kind" type of restitution for environmental damage is not
an acceptable alternative to restoration because it does not remove the resulting increase
of carbon dioxide. Both conservation of global biomass and productivity, as indexes of
environmental sustainability, require much more extensive conservation of the biosphere
than ecological, species or genetic sustainability.

To assess the quantitative effects of technological practices on environmental

sustainability, the quantity of all environmentally active waste products produced, their
lifetimes and effects on the biosphere, and the cost of removing them or paying for the
damages caused by their excess must be taken into account. The necessary technology
and analytical tools already exist, but they have never been applied on the scale required.
If carbon storage and exchange were monitored in the same way as monetary reserves
and financial exchanges, the biospheric costs and benefits of different energy options
affecting carbon dioxide could be evaluated. It would then be straightforward to determine
and allocate the costs of carbon dioxide removal, internalize those costs and other real
costs in the prices of environmentally damaging fuels, and control carbon recycling to a
longterm advantage.

Sustainability and optimal sustainability

Sustainability alone is not an adequate criterion for satisfactory development. There are
many possible scenarios that are sustainable, but because they provide different levels of
resources per capita, not all of them are equally desirable. A doomsday scenario in which
population and pollution increase, leading to a population crash, could ultimately become
sustainable at a very low level of population or standard of living. Many sustainable paths
are highly sub-optimal, and analytical tools must allow them to be quantified and
compared. The optimal approach to sustainability would be one in which a rapid growth of
renewable resources maximizes return to future generations, though some deferral in
initial return may be required. Environmental efficiency would need to be maximized, that
is, the rate at which the natural environment recycles and retains carbon dioxide, and the
economic value of the products sustainably produced by that biomass would need to be
increased.

Forestalling climate change by maximizing biomass and bio-productivity is prudent for

many reasons, and it is the least costly option. Anticipation and prevention are always less
costly than hindsight, clean up, environmental restoration or financial compensation, as
evidenced by the Alaskan oil spill and the disasters at Chernobyl, Bhopal, Seveso,
Minamata, and Cubatao. Stabilizing atmospheric composition, containing global climate
change, conserving our natural heritage, promoting truly renewable energy sources and
enhancing our renewable resource base are technically feasible at a modest cost, one that
is far less than the costs of unabated greenhouse warming and a rise in sea levels. Global
photosynthetic rates need be increased only a few percent in order to accommodate the
current carbon dioxide build-up, and this could be accomplished at a cost well under 1
percent of global gross national product (GNP). This is hardly inflationary compared to the
astonishing fraction of GNP that must be used to pay national and foreign debt—up to 50
per cent in many countries—which promotes increased environmental destruction for
shortsighted and unsustainable profits. As soon as analytical tools adequately evaluate the
costs of human actions on environmental sustainability in terms of biological carbon, the
costs of action to stabilize climate change and promote sustainable development could be
minor compared to those of financial sustainability. The sooner a sustainable environment
is achieved, the lower the cost and the greater the rewards.

1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford,

England, Oxford University Press. 1987).

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Environmental Impact of Production

and Use of Energy, Part IV Comparative Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of
Energy Sources, Phase 1: Comparative data on the Emissions, Residuals, and Health
Hazards of Energy Sources, Energy Report Series 14-85 (Nairobi, Kenya, UNEP, May
1985); Phase 11: Cost-benefit Analysis of the Environmental lmpact of Commercial Energy
Sources and Its Use in Emission Control of Energy Systems, Energy Report Series 15-85
(Nairobi, Kenya, May 1985); Phase 111: Assessment of Tools and Methods for
Incorporating the Environmental Factor into Energy Planning and Decision-making, Energy
Report Series 17-86 (Nairobi, Kenya, UNEP, 1986).

3. W. Leontief, A. Carter and P. Petri, Future of the World Economy (New York, Oxford
University Press, 1977).

4. D. Pearce, A. Markandya and E.B. Barbier, Blueprint for a Green Economy (London,
Earthscan Publications, 1989).

5. D. Cooke and others, "Sunlight brighter than the sun", Vature, vol. 346 (1990), p. 802.

6. W.H. Hilbertz, "Electrodeposition of minerals in sea water: experiments and

applications", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, IEEE Journal on Oceanic
Engineering, vol. OE-4, No. 3 (1979), pp. 94-112; and "Solar-generated building materials
from seawater as a sink for carbon", Amblo (forthcoming).

7. T. J. Goreau, "The other half of the global carbon dioxide problem", Nature, vol. 328
(1987), pp. 581-582.

8. J. Goldemberg, and others, Energy for Development and Energy for a Sustainable
World (Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute, 1987).

9. T.J. Goreau, "Balancing atmospheric carbon dioxide", Ambio, vol. 19 (1990), pp. 230-
236; R. Grantham, "Approaches to correcting the global greenhouse drift by managing
tropical ecosystems", Tropical Ecology vol. 30 (1989), pp. 157-174; G. Maryland, The
Prospect of Solving the CO2 Problem through Global Reforestation (Washington, D.C.,
United States Department of Energy, 1988); and S. Postel and L. Heise, Reforesting the
Earth (Washington, D.C., Worldwatch Institute. 1988).

10. N. Myers and T.1. Goreau, "Tropical forests and the Greenhouse effect: a
management response", Climate Change, vol. 19 (1991), pp.215-225.

11. J.M. Epstein and R. Gupta, Controlling the greenhouse effect. Occasional Paper
Series Washington D.C.. The Brookings Institution (1991),

12. T.J. Goreau and W. de Mello, "Tropical deforestation: some effects on atmospheric
chemistry", Ambio 17 (1988). pp. 275-281.

13. H. Rodhe, "A comparison of the contribution of various gases to the greenhouse
effect", Science, vol. 36 (1990), pp. 1217-1219.