Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Industry Ecology - Fischer
Industry Ecology - Fischer
Industry Ecology - Fischer
net/publication/286017592
CITATIONS READS
44 580
1 author:
Marina Fischer-Kowalski
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
186 PUBLICATIONS 8,382 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
SUSAKI: Socioecological transitions, sustainability and collapse of island communities: the case of Samothraki View project
my main research now is devoted to a sustainability transformation on the Greek island of Samothraki, see
www.sustainable-samothraki.net View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Marina Fischer-Kowalski on 07 December 2015.
‘On the history of industrial metabolism’: this title has a double meaning. On the one
hand, it refers to the history of a paradigm, of a way to think about a problem. On the
other hand, it refers to a time-series of facts: how has industrial metabolism developed
over the past, say, 200 years, and what preceded it? What are the specific historical
features of ‘industrial metabolism’ as compared with other types of socioeconomic
metabolism? In this chapter, I will touch on the first subject only, dealing with the history
of the paradigm, with the intellectual traditions on which it rests.
History Agricultural
sciences
Society's
metabolism
Materials
Economics
science
Cultural Social
anthropology geography
Figure 2.1 Overview of scientific traditions and the study of society’s metabolism: an
interdisciplinary concept
It is interesting to note that there are, across the various disciplines under considera-
tion, very distinct phases of development for the paradigm of socioeconomic metab-
olism:
a A first phase can be localised in the late 1860s and is mostly associated with a
progressivist evolutionary world-view.
a A second phase, still indebted to a progressivist evolutionary perspective but
already with some critical overtones, spreads from about the First World War to
the mid-1950s.
a A third phase, in the late 1960s, which I choose to term the phase of the
pioneers, is marked by modern environmental concerns and lacks the belief in
an ever-brighter future.
Subsequently, there followed more than two decades of relative stagnation: the holistic
perspective of ‘size’ and ‘growth’ of industrial metabolism receded behind the predomi-
nance of pollution and toxicity. In the 1990s, then, there was a virtual explosion of
research dealing with industrial metabolism, and the term ‘industrial metabolism’ was
(re)born (Ayres and Simonis 1994; Baccini and Brunner 1991; Fischer-Kowalski and
Haberl 1993; Lehmann and Schmidt-Bleek 1993) as a powerful unifying concept to relate
the functioning of economy and society to its consequences on the environment. But this
is just part of the story. Typically, between one phase and the next, the threads were cut,
and each author seemed to start anew.
It was in the 1860s, when the concept of ‘metabolism’, both as applied to organisms
and to human social systems, was born—pretty much at the same time in biology and in
social theory. Subsequently, the idea of an energy and materials exchange between society
(or, more narrowly, the economy) and the environment as a relevant process, and as an
interdependency between social and natural systems, played a role in various social and
natural sciences.
The term ‘metabolism’, according to present-day standard biological textbooks, refers
to the ‘totality of the biochemical reactions in a living thing. These reactions proceed
down metabolic pathways’ (Purves et al. 1992: 130; see Fig. 2.2). This more-or-less bio-
chemical notion of metabolism has developed away from the 19th-century concept of
metabolism as an exchange of energy and substances between organisms and the envi-
ronment which, by the writings of Moleschott (1857), had become influential in the
social science theory of that time. So the modern biochemical notion of metabolism
refers more to the transformative processes of cells, organs and organisms, and does not
focus on the environment–organism interface.
Ecologists use the term ‘metabolism’ to refer to the energy conversion and nutrient
cycling in ecosystems (e.g. Clements 1916; Lotka 1925; Odum 1959, 1969). Among biol-
ogists, it is a matter of dispute whether the term ‘metabolism’ may legitimately be used
beyond organisms, on the level of ecosystems. Although this dispute is still going on, it
is widely accepted that, in effect, biotic communities and ecosystems have self-organis-
ing properties that allow them to optimise the utilisation of energy and nutrients (e.g. see
Beck et al. 1991). What is common to the biochemical and the ecological approach is the
idea of metabolism being a complex self-organising process of autopoietic systems,
dependent on the characteristics of this system, and stabilising this system vis-à-vis
highly variable environments (Fig. 2.2). So, whether this notion legitimately can be used
for the economy of for society in a literal, and not only in a metaphorical sense, depends
on the degree of system integration attributed to social systems. Interestingly enough,
biologists are very willing to attribute organismic (or system integration) characteristics
to the human society where they might deny them to an ecosystem (for an early example,
see Tansley 1935: 290; for a critical discussion, see Oechsle 1988).
For the early ‘founding fathers’ of social theory (e.g. Marx, Engels, Spencer and Comte)
the material society–nature interaction seemed to be an important issue. They readily
made use of the biological concepts of their time: Marx and Engels, well acquainted with
Moleschott’s writings, were the first to apply the term ‘metabolism’ to society. They shared
with most other social scientists of those times an interest in the advances of biology,
particularly in evolutionary theory and their implications for universal progress. For
Herbert Spencer in his First Principles in 1862, the process of societal advance and the
differences in stages of advancement among societies can be accounted for by energy:
Commonalities
Metabolism = self-organising process of highly complex autopoietic systems,
subject to evolution.
progress depends on an available energy surplus. The more energy a society is able to
consume, the further advanced it is. Societal progress is based on energy surplus. First it
enables social growth and thereby social differentiation. Second it provides room for
cultural activities beyond basic vital needs.
The beginnings of cultural anthropology were, similar to the situation in sociology,
marked by evolutionism (as in the works of Morgan 1877, 1963; see Fig. 2.3), and cultural
anthropology then split into a more functionalist and a more culturalist tradition. The
functionalist line, from which contributions to societal metabolism should be expected,
did not, as was the case in sociology, turn towards economics and distributional prob-
lems but retained a focus on the society–nature interface. In effect, several conceptual
clarifications and rich empirical material on societies’ metabolism can be gained from
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1867, 1961): Herbert Spencer (1862) and
‘Metabolism between man and Lewis H. Morgan (1877, 1963):
nature’ is effected by human labour: ‘energetic’ theory of evolution:
labour (mediated by technology) the more energy a society consumes,
transforms ‘nature's material . . . to the more advanced it is
the wants of man’.
Ecological anthropolgy
Leslie White (1949), Julian Steward (1955) and Marvin Harris (1965):
Society and culture organise human metabolism (core: nutrition) under
given environmental conditions and for a given carrying capacity (regulating population
reproduction, food habits, handling of water). Environmental change is a consequence of social
metabolism, or, for other reasons, leads to cultural change: ‘cultural evolution’.
this research tradition that Orlove (1980), in his critical review, terms ‘ecological anthro-
pology’. The followers of this approach ‘see the social organisation and culture of
specific populations as functional adaptations which permit the populations to exploit
their environments successfully without exceeding their carrying capacity’ (Orlove 1980:
240). The unit that is maintained is a given population rather than a particular social
order (as put forward by sociological functionalists). In contrast to biological ecologists,
they treat adaptation not as a matter of individuals and their genetic success but as a
matter of cultures. Up to now this research tradition has borne rich fruit that typically is
not registered within the industrial ecology research community.
In 1864 George Perkins Marsh states in his book Man and Nature that people endanger
themselves by destroying their base of subsistence (Fig. 2.4). His main concern is
deforestation and the threats of wood scarcity. Marsh was not concerned about the
exhaustion of mineral resources. But this was the issue Nathaniel Shaler took up in 1905,
worried about the ever-increasing human consumption of mineral resources. One might
say this shift of focus from Marsh (1864) to Shaler (1905) reflects the change in society’s
metabolism from an agrarian mode of production (where scarcity of food promotes the
social geography
George Perkins Marsh (1864; Man and Nature):
‘Physical geography as modified by human action’:
forests are eliminated as a consequence of the need to feed an
ever-growing population.
extension of agricultural land at the expense of forests) to an industrial one, where vital
‘nutrients’ are drawn from subterranean sinks that one day will be exhausted. It reflects
it—but it does not reflect on it.
In 1955 seventy participants from all over the world and from a great variety of
disciplines convened in Princeton, New Jersey, for a remarkable conference: ‘Man’s Role
in Changing the Face of the Earth’ (Fig. 2.4). The conference was paying honour to
George Perkins Marsh and his book of 1864. It was financed by the Wenner-Gren Foun-
dation for Anthropological Research, and the geographer Carl O. Sauer, the zoologist
Marston Bates and the urban planner Lewis Mumford presided over the sessions. The
papers and discussions were published in a 1,200-page compendium (Thomas 1956a)
that documents, so I would claim, the world’s first interdisciplinary panel on environ-
mental problems of human development, staged by top scientists.
This compendium expresses a strong concern with the limited natural base for an
explosively rising economic demand for minerals. Such a ‘materials flow’ focus seems to
have been strongly supported by wartime experiences and institutions. Ordway (1956:
988) quotes data from a 1952 report of the President’s Materials Policy Commission
(Paley Report 1952) worrying about the ‘soaring demand’ for materials. (This report is an
excellent source for research into longer time-series of materials consumption, by the
way!) The depletion of national resources becomes part of a global concern: ‘if all the
nations of the world should acquire the same standard of living as our own, the resulting
world need for materials would be six times present consumption’ (Ordway 1956: 988).
The bulk of material flow considerations in the 1955 conference is devoted to the input
side of metabolism. The overall systemic consideration that the mobilisation of vast
amounts of matter from geological sinks (e.g. minerals and fossil energy carriers) into a
materially closed system such as the biosphere would change parameters of atmospheric,
oceanic and soil chemistry on a global level does not occur yet. Still, many contributions
of this conference document the transformations of local and regional natural environ-
ments by human activity, both historically and at the time of the conference. Some years
later, this tradition was explicitly continued in a further publication, representing the
contemporary state of the art of social geography, dating from 1990: The Earth as Trans-
formed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years,
edited by Turner et al.
The global environmental change issue was then taken up by a special issue of Scientific
American in September 1970, devoted to the ‘Biosphere’. One year later, Scientific American
edited an issue on energy and socioeconomic energy metabolism (Scientific American 1971).
In 1969 the German geographer Neef explicitly talked about the ‘metabolism between
society and nature’ as a core problem of geography (Neef 1969). But this already belongs
to the post-1968 cultural revolution of environmentalism, which we will look at next.
This serves as the introduction to the first attempt to conceptualise and operationalise the
metabolism of industrial society, for the case of a model US city of a million inhabitants
(see Fig. 2.5). He is well aware of water being the input needed in by far the highest
quantities, but he also offers estimates for food and fossil energy inputs, as well as for
(selected) outputs such as refuse and air pollutants. His argument is directed mainly at
problems he foresees in the provision of an adequate water supply to US megacities.2
The economist Kenneth Boulding had also been a participant in the 1955 conference.
In ‘The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth’, Boulding (1966) briefly outlines,
with reference to the systems theory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1952), an oncoming
change from a ‘cowboy economy’ to a ‘spaceman economy’ (Fig. 2.5). The present world
economy, according to this view, is an open system with regard to energy, matter and
information (an ‘econosphere’). There is a ‘total capital stock, that is the set of all objects,
people, organisations and so on’ (Boulding 1966: 5) that has inputs and outputs. Objects
pass from the non-economic to the economic set in the process of production, and
objects pass out of the economic set ‘as their value becomes zero’ (Boulding 1966: 5).
Thus, he says, ‘we see the econosphere as a material process’. This similarly can be
described from an energetic point of view. In the ‘cowboy economy’, throughput is at
least a plausible measure of the success of the economy:
By contrast, in the spaceman economy, throughput is by no means a desider-
atum, and is indeed to be regarded as something to be minimised rather than
maximised. The essential measure of the success of the economy its not pro-
duction and consumption at all, but the nature, extent, quality and complexity
of the total capital stock, including in this the state of the human bodies and
minds (Boulding 1966: 9).
Here we find one of the first systematic considerations of the material compartments of,
as I would say, society (what Boulding calls the econosphere) visualised as an input–out-
put system within the biosphere. Boulding does not, because of his systems approach,
confound the economy or society with an ecosystem.
In 1969 Bob Ayres, a physicist, and Allen Kneese, an economist, presented the full
programme of what was much later, in the 1990s, carried out as material flow analyses of
national economies. Their core argument is an economic one: that the economy draws
2 A few years later, Australian human ecologists analysed the metabolism of Hong Kong, con-
centrating on its ‘bio-metabolism’: that is, its human and animal nutrient cycles, only. A com-
parison with Sydney (data for the years 1970 and 1971) illustrated a ‘Western-style’ diet, with
the same calorific and nutrient benefit for the consumer, to be about twice as wasteful as a diet
in the Chinese tradition (see Boyden et al. 1981; Newcombe 1977).
Robert Ayres and Allen Kneese (1968, 1969; Kneese et al. 1974)
present the first comprehensive empirical material flow
analysis for the USA and relate it to population and GDP.
Their core argument is an economic one: that the economy heavily draws from priceless
environmental goods such as air and water, goods that are becoming increasingly scarce in
highly developed countries, and that this would preclude a Pareto-optimal functioning of
markets at the expenses of those free common goods. They conclude with a formal general
equilibrium model to take care of these externalities. They claim ‘that the common failure
[of economics] . . . may result from viewing the production and consumption processes in a
manner that is somewhat at variance with the fundamental law of the conservation of mass’.
Thus they propose to ‘view environmental pollution and its control as a materials balance
problem for the entire economy’. They anticipate carbon dioxide—for its sheer quantity—
would become a major environmental problem(!)
heavily on priceless environmental goods such as air and water, goods that are becoming
increasingly scarce in highly developed countries, and that this would preclude a Pareto-
optimal functioning of markets at the expense of those free common goods. They
conclude with a formal general equilibrium model to take care of these externalities.
In the first part of the paper Ayres and Kneese give an outline of the problem, and they
present a first material flow analysis for the USA for the period 1963–65. They claim ‘that
the common failure (of economics) . . . may result from viewing the production and
consumption processes in a manner that is somewhat at variance with the fundamental
law of the conservation of mass’ (Ayres and Kneese 1969: 283). There must occur, they
argue, uncompensated externalities unless one of the following three situations prevails:
a All inputs of the production process are fully converted into outputs, with no
unwanted residuals along the way (or else they all must be stored on the
producers’ property)
a All final outputs (commodities) are utterly destroyed, made to disappear, in the
process of consumption
a The property rights are so arranged that all relevant environmental attributes
are in private ownership and these rights are exchanged in competitive markets
They state that none of these conditions can be expected to hold (Ayres and Kneese 1969:
283):
Nature does not permit the destruction of matter except by annihilation with
anti-matter, and the means of disposal of unwanted residuals which maxi-
mises the internal return of decentralised decision units is by discharge to the
environment, principally, watercourses and the atmosphere. Water and air are
traditionally free goods in economics. But in reality . . . they are common
property resources of great and increasing value . . . Moreover, . . . technolog-
ical means for processing or purifying one or another type of waste discharge
[does] not destroy the residuals but only [alters] their form . . . Thus, . . .
[recycling] of materials into productive uses or discharge into an alternative
medium are the only general options (Ayres and Kneese 1969: 283).
Later, taking us up to the present day, another option came into view: the downsizing of
industrial metabolism.
The same lesson can be cast as a biological analogy: an organism belonging to a certain
species has to sustain a certain metabolism on which its whole internal structure
depends. If there is a profound difference in metabolism, there will be a profound
difference in the organism itself—it will be the member of another species. So if we wish
to change the energetic metabolism of modern industrial societies, for example, we
should be aware of the scope of the project. It will not just be a technological task: it will
in the end imply profound socioeconomic, historical change.
The second lesson I have learned, and I hope the reader can follow me in this, is both
the need and the potential of a thoroughly systemic perspective, as the term ‘metabolism’
implies. This concept brings into view the totality of a techno-economic social system
within a natural, but also within a socioeconomic, environment. With this picture in
mind, many of the fallacies of earlier environmental policy become redundant: you
cannot profoundly alter a system’s outputs (i.e. its wastes and emissions) without
changing also its inputs and the ways it works internally.
Finally, I hope it has become obvious that, to be able to deal with industrial metab-
olism, social and natural sciences must co-operate intimately. The appeal to co-operation
across the ‘great divide’ (Snow 1956) has of late become very popular. The field of
industrial ecology seems to be one where this really happens. To put it in the terms of the
much-debated French philosopher of science, Bruno Latour: in modern thinking and
science, sociocultural ‘subjects’ and natural ‘objects’ were pulled apart to constitute two
completely separate realms of reality. However, what modern industrial society con-
stantly does is the opposite: the creation of socio–cultural–natural hybrids. It has to learn
to deal with them (see Latour 1991).