In a post from the other day, 2nd Green Revolution reviewed Paul Hawken’s groundbreaking 1993 book, The Ecology of Commerce. Throughout his work, Hawken provides insightful information that causes us to rethink our current resource management.

One example of his eye-opening exposé revolves around recycling. Hawken states the astonishing fact that “If the items used in households in America were all recycled, this would reduce our solid waste by only 1 to 2 percent.” How can this be? Estimates suggest that 70 times as much waste is produced upstream. For every kilogram of waste thrown out by consumers, manufacturers produce 70 kilograms. The consumer can only do so much, since they are at the end of the line. Companies must take design factors into consideration on the front end and work to produce goods that do not generate exorbitant amounts of waste or use toxins in the manufacturing process. Furthermore, these improvements could also include implementing changes for the product’s next iteration, the basis for “cradle to cradle” design.

Hawken believes that in order to reflect the true cost of fossil (and other nonrenewable, polluting) fuels a “green fee” is necessary. He also argues that “taxing energy would be the most fruitful and beneficial, and it would provide the greatest short-term and long-term benefit. A tax on the carbon content of fuels is a green tax that raises the price of energy sources proportionate to their emission of carbon, thereby providing users of those fuels with a positive incentive to switch to more efficient combustion methods and, where possible, to less polluting forms of energy.” This follows Hawken’s belief that “increases in efficiencies not only will reduce global warming gases such as CO₂, but also save money and improve the economy.” He goes on to cite a study that countries with higher energy costs have experienced greater economic growth and innovation, than those with lower energy costs. Although he mentions CO₂, Hawken takes the same approach as Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Both gentlemen argue that global warming is not the reason to alter energy usage,. Instead, they both make the case that it becomes a moot point if solar, wind, and hydroelectricity – which are not only renewable, but never run out, unlike wood did in the 19th century – become the dominant energy sources.

Another fact Hawken cites is that weatherization and other efficiencies could reduce our energy consumption by a factor of four, saving the United States $200 billion (US) annually.

In general, Hawken suggests that humans obey three principles:

1.    Obey the waste-equals-food principle [as in nature when the waste of one organism or process becomes the food for another] and entirely eliminate waste from our industrial production
2.    Change from an economy based on carbon to one based on hydrogen and sunshine
3.    Create systems of feedback and accountability that support and strengthen restorative behavior, whether they are resource utilities, green fees on agricultural chemicals, or reliance on local production and distribution

Ultimately, The Ecology of Commerce suggests that humans need to live off of their “current income” with regards to energy. The idea is that we derive a majority of our energy from ancient, stored sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. If humans are to achieve sustainable development, we need to live off of energy that comes to the Earth on a daily basis (i.e. solar, wind, etc.) not those that have built up over millions of years but do not replenish in our lifetimes.

- Eric Wilson

[image source: PaulHawken.com]