Factor x challenges, implementation strategies and examples for a sustainable use of natural resources

Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science 32

Harry Lehmann Editor

Factor X

Challenges, Implementation
Strategies and Examples for
a Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

www.ebook3000.com


ECO-EFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE
VOLUME 32


More information about this series at />
www.ebook3000.com


Harry Lehmann
Editor

Factor X
Challenges, Implementation Strategies and
Examples for a Sustainable Use of Natural
Resources

Managing editors
Mandy Hinzmann, Nick Evans, Terri Kafyeke,

Stephen Bell, Martin Hirschnitz-Garbers (Ecologic Institute)
Martina Eick (German Environment Agency)


Editor
Harry Lehmann
Factor X/10 Club
German Environment Agency
Dessau-Roßlau, Germany

ISSN 1389-6970
Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science
ISBN 978-3-319-50078-2    ISBN 978-3-319-50079-9 (eBook)
/>Library of Congress Control Number: 2017954331
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

www.ebook3000.com


Foreword

Dear reader,
The high standard of living that we enjoy depends entirely on the quality and
availability of natural resources. Driven by global population growth and increasing
economic performance, mineral raw materials and fossil fuels are being extracted in
ever greater quantities. The extraction of these resources has profound environmental impacts, such as the destruction of ecosystems and habitats as well as air, water
and soil pollution.
For this reason, we pursue various measures for more efficient resource use and
management, with the aim of keeping the negative effects of resource use within
reasonable bounds. The overarching objective is a transition towards sustainability—a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy, in which natural capital is protected
and enhanced and the health and well-being of citizens is safeguarded.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance that all countries urgently adapt their economies by increasing resource efficiency, reducing resource consumption in absolute
terms and abandoning resource-intensive consumption patterns in favour of
resource-efficient lifestyles. The economical use of raw materials not only reduces
pressures on the environment but also creates economic opportunities for individual
companies and strengthens the economy as a whole.
The development of resource policy requires a skilful combination and bundling
of different measures and instruments since there is no uniform policy approach that
meets the different requirements. Rather, the respective objectives, action requirements, target groups and policy levels must be addressed using specific policy
approaches.
Some aspects of sustainable resource use are, even in political circles, not well
understood. To shed light on this critical topic and inform the ongoing political
process, we have invited a wide range of relevant stakeholders from the fields of

science, politics, business and technology to share their experiences and views on
how to achieve the sustainable use of natural resources.
Because of the thematic diversity, it is not surprising that the contributions in this
book describe a range of developments in resource efficiency, from incremental
improvements to profound change and transformation. At the same time, all p­ olitical
v


vi

Foreword

levels are addressed: the authors consider global megatrends and comprehensive
resource policies as well as regional and national efforts, such as the European
Union’s Circular Economy Package and Germany’s Resource Efficiency
Programme. In addition, the numerous practical cases detail best practice examples
of resource use in urban and rural areas, manufacturing companies and private
households. Of particular interest are unusual and innovative ways of thinking, such
as contributions on the path to degrowth for a sustainable society or the husbandry
of the finance system and natural resources.
This book is intended for anyone interested in the sustainable use of natural
resources. It provides insights into awareness raising and policymaking and contains references to practical developments that will accompany us on the path of
transition towards a more sustainable society.
Thus, it is my hope that this book will attract a great deal of attention.
Regarding the production of this third Factor X book, I like to thank the teams
responsible for the coordination and supervision, namely Mandy Hinzmann, Martin
Hirschnitz-Garbers, Terri Kafyeke, Nick Evans and Stephen Bell from Ecologic
Institute as managing editors; Krithika Radhakrishnan, Catalina Sava and Fritz
Schmuhl from Springer; and Martina Eick who managed the process on the part of
the German Environmental Agency. And of course I specially and warmly thank all

the authors of the book.
President of the German Environment Agency
Dessau/Berlin, Germany

www.ebook3000.com

Maria Krautzberger


Contents

Part I  Challenges
1Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept” Is Essential
for Achieving Sustainable Development������������������������������������������������    3
Harry Lehmann, Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek,
and Christopher Manstein
2Necessities for a Resource Efficient Europe������������������������������������������   13
Leida Rijnhout, Magda Stoczkiewicz, and Meadhbh Bolger
3Global Megatrends and Resource Use – A Systemic Reflection����������   31
Ullrich Lorenz, Harald Ulrik Sverdrup,
and Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir
4Data, Indicators and Targets for Comprehensive Resource
Policies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45
Stephan Lutter, Stefan Giljum, and Martin Bruckner
5The Critical Raw Materials Concept: Subjective,
Multifactorial and Ever-Developing������������������������������������������������������   71
Jan Kosmol, Felix Müller, and Hermann Keßler
6Equitable, Just Access to Natural Resources:
Environmental Narratives during Worsening Climate Crises������������   93
Patrick Bond

Part II  Implementation Strategies
7Circular Economy: Origins and Future Orientations��������������������������  115
Riina Antikainen, David Lazarevic, and Jyri Seppälä
8Financial System, and Energy and Resource Husbandry��������������������  131
R. Andreas Kraemer

vii


viii

Contents

9Developing Resource Competence – Anchoring Resource
Conservation and Efficiency in the German
Education System������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  149
Carolin Baedeker, Holger Rohn, Michael Scharp,
and Jaya Bowry
10The Way from Problem Scope Towards the Vision of a Low
Resource Society – The First Working Period of the Resources
Commission at the German Environment Agency (KRU) ������������������  163
Sascha Hermann and Christa Liedtke
11Implementing Resource Efficiency in Europe – Overview
of Policies, Instruments and Targets in 32 European Countries ��������  185
Paweł Kaźmierczyk
12The Resource Nexus and Resource Efficiency: What
a Nexus Perspective Adds to the Story ��������������������������������������������������  199
Raimund Bleischwitz and Michal Miedzinski
13Germany’s Resource Efficiency Agenda: Driving Momentum
on the National Level and Beyond����������������������������������������������������������  213

Reinhard Kaiser
14Results of Three Cost-Effective, Innovative and Transferable
Resource-Efficiency Instruments for Industries
in the Basque Country ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  233
Ander Elgorriaga Kunze and Ignacio Quintana San Miguel
15The Circular Economy Package of the European Union ��������������������  251
Joachim Wuttke
16Saving Natural Resources Through Conversion
and Constructional Densification in Urban Areas:
Ecological Potentials and Limits������������������������������������������������������������  263
Daniel Reißmann and Matthias Buchert
17The Path to Degrowth for a Sustainable Society����������������������������������  277
Serge Latouche
Part III  Examples of Good Practice
18Social Innovation Repair – The R.U.S.Z Case: A Systemic
Approach Contributing to the Unplanned Obsolescence
of Capitalism��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  287
Sepp Eisenriegler and Greta Sparer
19Resource Efficiency in the Building Sector��������������������������������������������  297
Klaus Dosch
20Eco Efficiency and Circular Production: Cases
from the Netherlands’ Eastern Region��������������������������������������������������  305
Frank A.G. den Butter and Harry A.A.M. Webers

www.ebook3000.com


Contents

ix

21An Approach to Identify Resource Patterns
on a Neighborhood Level������������������������������������������������������������������������  317
Magnus Österbring, Leonardo Rosado, Holger Wallbaum,
and Paul Gontia
22Strategic Business Examples from Finland: The Growth
of the Smartup Industry��������������������������������������������������������������������������  325
Tuuli Kaskinen, Satu Lähteenoja, Mikael Sokero, and Iiris Suomela
23Circular Flanders: Adaptive Policy for a Circular Economy��������������  335
Sam Deckmyn
24The 100 Companies Project Resource Efficient Practice Cases
from Producing Industry������������������������������������������������������������������������  347
Mario Schmidt
25Lifestyle Material Footprint of Finnish Households – Insights,
Targets, Transitions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  359
Michael Lettenmeier
26Construction 4.0: The LifeCycle Tower and Digitalised
Timber Construction ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  373
Hubert Rhomberg
27Protect Resources, Strengthen the Economy: Good Examples
for Resource Efficiency in Industry and Handicraft Businesses ��������  385
Peter Jahns
28Chemical Leasing: A Business Model to Drive Resource Efficiency
in the Supply Chain ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  395
Reinhard Joas, Veronika Abraham, and Anke Joas
29Resource Efficiency for the Manufacturing Industries –
A Holistic Approach��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  405
Werner Maass, Christof Oberender, and Martin Vogt
30Towards a Resource Efficient and Greenhouse Gas Neutral
Germany 2050������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  417

Jens Günther, Harry Lehmann, Ullrich Lorenz, David Pfeiffer,
and Katja Purr
31Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si’ as a Catalyst for Societal
Transformation? Critical Remarks and Presentation
of an Inspired Exemplary Project as a Driver
for Sustainability��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  427
Ulrich Bartosch, Christian Meier, and Till Weyers
Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  445


Part I

Challenges

www.ebook3000.com


Chapter 1

Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept”
Is Essential for Achieving Sustainable
Development
Harry Lehmann, Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek, and Christopher Manstein

Abstract  A dematerialisation of industrialised countries by a Factor of 10 (minus
90%) was first suggested 25  years ago in order to achieve sustainable economic
development worldwide by 2050. The Factor 10 postulate was a response to two
realities: first, anthropogenic material flows have increased dramatically since the
first Industrial Revolution, and second, the richest countries consume significantly
more natural resources per capita than the world’s poorest countries. Twenty-five

years later these facts have not changed in principle, and a global per capita consumption of three to eight tonnes of primary raw material must be reached in this
century. Today the term “Factor X” is often used instead of “Factor 10”, because the
necessary dematerialisation is different from country to country. Industrialised
countries have higher targets. The article describes the beginning of the Factor X
postulate in the early 1990s as well as developments thereafter and discusses today’s
options and challenges for tomorrow.
Keywords  Earth system policy • Anthropogenic material flows • Dematerialisation
• Factor 10 / X • Resource efficiency policy • Protection and efficient use of natural
resource • Material-cycle societies • New wealth model • Happiness

H. Lehmann (*)
Factor X/10 Club, German Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
e-mail:
F. Schmidt-Bleek
Factor X/10 Club, International Factor 10 Institute, Berlin, Germany
e-mail:
C. Manstein
German Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
H. Lehmann (ed.), Factor X, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science 32,
/>
3


4

H. Lehmann et al.

1.1  T

 he Beginning – A Systemic Approach to “Earth Systems
Policy”
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development was signed by more than
170 countries in 1992. “Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the
Earth, our home”, the Declaration proclaims 27 principles of future sustainable
development. In Principle 15 it is written: “In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation.” In light of this it was clear that only a systematic approach and analysis of the “System Earth” could derive the adequate policies
needed solve global ecological problems.
We live in an almost closed system called Earth. This system interacts with the
rest of the proximate universe almost exclusively through the exchange of energy in
the form of radiation. Thus, the Earth and its inhabitants are linked in a system of
mutual dependence. From a human point of view, the Earth’s “survival” system
consists of two domains—the anthroposphere and the biosphere. In the anthroposphere, humans consume minerals, ores, water and air, burn energy carriers, harvest
biomass, hunt and fish, thus creating “wealth” and waste at all levels. The biosphere
is the domain in which flora and fauna seek to survive according to the rules of
evolution and according to the given anthropogenic circumstances. The survival of
human beings is dependent on both sub-systems.
Science today still knows very little about these sub-systems, and has hardly
even begun to investigate some parts of them (e.g. the deep sea). However, one of
the most researched aspects is the Earth’s climatic system. Massive expenditure on
personnel and technology has been required to establish reliable prognoses of the
future behaviour of the climatic system. Science has learned from these analyses
that the biosphere and anthroposphere are extremely complex systems permanently
undergoing reorganisation. The basic laws governing the behaviour of the sub-­
systems are nonlinear. Because of the predominantly nonlinear dynamics, these systems can behave chaotically and are subject to massive changes in a short time
period as a result of seemingly minor causes. Nevertheless, science provides only
limited information on the effects of human action, either regarding the intensity of
the biosphere’s reaction or the time scales involved.
Today, the changing climatic system and global warming are the most discussed

environmental concerns, but there are many other known problems, including radioactive contamination, water pollution and use, air pollution, acid rain, land use, land
soil destruction, degradation of land, chemical contamination, deforestation, waste
deposition, the ozone hole, monocultures and destruction of biodiversity. Moreover,
there is a high probability of numerous additional problems that we have still not
realized even exist.
Even if in a “thought experiment” we could have a full understanding (“God’s
view”) of both systems—of the flows in the bio- and anthroposphere, of all

www.ebook3000.com


1  Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept” Is Essential for Achieving Sustainable…

5

i­nteractions, of the actual status of all parameters and last but not least a computerlike ability to run such a complex model—this would still not be sufficient to make
predictions about all the effects of human actions. The dominating nonlinear dynamics and the ability of reorganisation will alter the system beyond what is predictable—our “God’s view” will become obsolete and the predictions of the future
behaviour of the system derived from our all-knowing model will become
inaccurate.
At this stage in history, and perhaps for all time to come, our actions must be
guided by the recognition of how little we know about our planet’s “survival” system and its susceptibility. As a precautionary measure, following Principle 15 in the
Rio Declaration, we should therefore attempt to minimise anthropogenic effects on
this system. We should strive to prevent as far as possible any negative consequences, assuming that an undisturbed biosphere will continue to exist in a way
humanity can survive and live in an agreeable manner. This precautionary principle
must constitute the main guideline for all human activity if sustainable development
is to be our primary aim.
To argue that somehow, we can “repair” the biosphere later is both, arrogant and
irresponsible. First, this implies the assumption that we are capable of repairing a
system which science has thus far failed to fully comprehend, and, secondly, it
ignores the fact that such global effects as climate change are frankly phenomena,

which are beyond “repair”.
Returning to the simple picture of the “System Earth”, the goal is to minimise the
impact of humankind on the biosphere. Minimising anthropogenic effects on the
biosphere entails a measurement of the consequences of human actions.
There are two types of interactions within this Earth’s survival system. First, one
can gauge the effects of anthroposphere on the biosphere by investigating its “outputs”. This is done today with a lot of effort in climate change research, by looking
at the effects of different types of agriculture on biodiversity or through an examination of the “riskless” limit of emissions of various types of chemicals. It is an important and established mainstream method of ecological policymaking in the last
decades.
There is an inherent limitation of such a policy approach. It can only take into
consideration singular effects, i.e., those which are already known—or in some
cases—suspected. The environmental policies of the last decades have been essentially reparative, “re-active” policies. Once recognised as hazardous or toxic, substances were withdrawn from the market at considerable expense, filtered out of
waste gases, incinerated as residues or prevented through costly process restructuring. In most cases, the limit values set for such hazardous substances are oriented to
human health. However, while the combatting of pollutants will remain an important priority in the future, it is hardly possible to derive stable and generally applicable principles for the ecological reform of industry from such substance-specific
procedures.
Second, one can gauge the material flows into the anthroposphere and the use of
land area and water by humankind. From an anthropogenic point of view, these are
“inputs”. There are different indicators used in today’s discourse but the most


6

H. Lehmann et al.

c­ ommon is a measure “resource productivity”. As long as indicators are linear and
easy to apply they can be used to develop a proper policy.
There is not—and probably will never be—a model that adequately links link
anthropogenic inputs and outputs. This is not least due to the fact that the anthroposphere is highly complicated and the different sub-sectors of the anthroposphere are
highly interactive. A highly theoretical approach is to measure the changes of
entropy through the anthroposphere. Yet, aside from the fact that the majority of
people will have trouble understanding such an indicator, there are principal theoretical problems with calculating real values.

“Size”: The biosphere needs undisturbed areas to live, to survive, to readjust, to
move and evolve. In former times, the anthroposphere was small compared to the
biosphere. The biosphere is finite—the anthroposphere has grown dramatically.
Population growth and the industrial revolution have eaten up resources and led to
exponential growth in the size of the anthroposphere leaving less and less room for
the biosphere.
We must also measure the velocity of the impact. How fast are these changes in
“input” and “output”? How fast do we change the composition of the sub-system
(e.g. increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)? The biosphere can react,
rearrange and try to find a new system state. In all these categories, humankind has
intervened in System Earth, resulting in changes in operations, previous functions
and services of the biosphere. Such changes can last for long periods and some are
irreversible.
Based on the previous analysis and on the precautionary principle the “Factor
X” concept was formulated in the beginning of the 1990s. The concept revolves
around fundamental principles:
• respecting that all humans—within the current generation, across all continents
and over the generations—have the same right to the fulfilment of basic needs
and requirements;
• recognizing that humankind needs a functioning biosphere—with enough
“space”.
To achieve this we must:
• significantly decrease the land use and the input into the anthroposphere;
• define limits of the anthroposphere; and
• develop a “new wealth” model (happiness, having access to services, “well-­
being” rather than “well-having”, i.e., owning artefacts).

1.2  How Big Is the X? – “An Eco Safety Factor”
During the early 1990s ecologically visible problems seemed to demand a reduction
of environmental pressures by at least 50%. In a growing world, population and

growing desires for prosperity—particularly in the developing countries—demands

www.ebook3000.com


1  Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept” Is Essential for Achieving Sustainable…

7

Fig. 1.1  International comparison between per capita raw material consumption (RMC) and the
global average, 2011 (Source: Lutter et al. 2016)

a fivefold increase of economic output. Together these lead to the first X—the
“Factor 10” as postulated by Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek (1992). Several authors analysed, discussed and worked out the idea of a Factor of 10, publicised in 1993 in the
“Fresenius Environmental Bulletin” (Schmidt-Bleek et al. 1993).
The Factor 10 Club (1994) was met with considerable international recognition
by representatives of business, policy and industry. The idea was that resource efficiency goals of countries should be high enough to bring about a sufficient decoupling of resource use from human development. The goals must influence the rules
of the economy and change lifestyles—the way we produce and consume goods and
services (Schmidt-Bleek 1992, 1993; Lehmann and Schmidt-Bleek 1993).
In 1995, the authors of the book “Factor Four” (Weizsäcker et al. 1997), took a
somewhat different approach. They looked at what was at hand in terms of technology or at least easily conceivable across the board, including energy. Assessing the
range of opportunities, they thought that an increase in resource/energy efficiency
by a factor of two and a doubling of the generated wealth would be feasible in the
foreseeable future.
Calculation with a modified “World3-91 Model” showed the necessity of higher
factors to bring the system into dynamic equilibrium. This started a discussion as to
whether a “Great Transformation” (absolute reduction of resource use levels) or a
gradual approach (relative improvements in the resource productivity) was the right
strategy (Fig. 1.1).
If we desire a sustainable level of raw material consumption and use, we must

apply the precautionary principle. This means reducing raw material consumption
wherever possible, making use of all productivity (efficiency) potentials and avoiding rebound effects (boomerang effects). We arrive at the currently discussed
­corridor of global per capita consumption between three and eight tonnes of primary raw material use (e.g. Bringezu 2015; UNEP 2016).


8

H. Lehmann et al.

This worldwide ecological sustainability goal allows the development of specific
national, regional and sectorial reduction factors. Today the term “Factor X” is often
used instead of “Factor 10”, because the necessary dematerialization is different
from country to country. Industrialised countries have higher targets. Estimates
indicate that such goals could—and must—be reached by the middle of this
century.

1.3  T
 oday’s Options – Rethink, Redesign, Refuse, Repair,
Reduce, Remanufacture, Reuse, Remodel, Recycle,
Recover and Increase the Lifetime of Products
In the last years, policymakers have recognised the necessity to react. One example
is the recent declaration from the leaders of the G7 countries:
The protection and efficient use of natural resources is vital for sustainable development.
We strive to improve resource efficiency, which we consider crucial for the competitiveness
of industries, for economic growth and employment, and for the protection of the environment, climate and planet. Building on the ‘Kobe 3R Action Plan’, and on other existing
initiatives, we will continue to take ambitious action to improve resource efficiency as part
of broader strategies to promote sustainable materials management and material-cycle societies. (Leadersʼ Declaration G7 Summit, 7–8 June 2015, Schloß Elmau, Page 17 ff.)

Awareness is growing about the challenges as well as the necessary political, societal and business strategies. The number of good practice examples is growing all
over the world. Since 2007 the “International Resource Panel” of UNEP has aimed

to help nations to use natural resources sustainably without compromising economic growth and human needs. Moreover, further policies exist on the international, European, national (e.g. Germany and the German Resource Efficiency
Program, ProgRess and ProgRess II (BMUB 2012, 2016)) regional and city level.
Science and engineers are increasingly working on the field of resource productivity and numerous standards and norms have been developed and formulated.
NGOs like the “Factor X Club” conferences like the “World Resources Forum” or
the “European Resources Forum” serve as neutral, international platforms for
debate on global resource consumption issues, advocating innovation for resource
productivity. Members of the business community are beginning to redesign their
models and new business strategies are creating revenues from the quality of services rather than by selling material products.
Detailed analysis of the actual status of Germany’s use of natural resources indicate that we are not really decoupling and lowering the use of resources (Lutter et al.
2016) (Fig. 1.2).
There are additional challenges such as the necessary transformation of the
energy supply in Germany and the rest of the world into a fully renewable and
­sustainable system. In this process, we must take into account the resources needed
for the transformation and to run and maintain such a system (see the ongoing study
by the German Environment Agency “Greenhouse Gas Neutral and Resource
Efficient Germany”). Another challenge is the increasing need for housing and

www.ebook3000.com


1  Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept” Is Essential for Achieving Sustainable…

9

Fig. 1.2  Development of per-capita raw material use in Germany using different indicators, 2000–
2010 (Source: Lutter et al. 2016)

infrastructure in some parts of the world. This will also require the use of resources
like metals, cement, energy and many critical materials.

1.4  Tomorrow – Urgent Policy Mix for “System Earth”
Bearing all of this in mind, a comprehensive policy mix needs to be designed and
implemented urgently. Future-oriented system-policies can no longer focus preferentially—on curing individual symptoms stemming from systemic problems.
System policies are as essential for measures designed to protect the environment as
they are needed when attempting to seek improvements in pursuing social, economic, financial/fiscal and institutional and health improvements.
Based on today’s current level of knowledge the following important and urgent
actions are required:
• Minimize mobilisation and use of natural resources—maximize their
productivity;
• Synthesise materials that can replace increasingly scarce natural materials;
• Change to materials that fit into natural material cycles after use;
• Minimise the use and release of toxic substances and radio-nuclides;
• Switch to an energy system based 100% on sustainable renewable resources;
• Stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.
A group of “first mover states” should define national, regional and sectorial
goals, including time-lines, for decoupling and lowering the use of resources. These
goals must then be periodically reviewed. There should also be an independent
panel, tasked with proposing adapted policies.
Such a group of like-minded first movers can be the Group of 7, Group of 20 or
a contingent of European countries. However, in the long run it must be the global
community that commits to an international agreement or treaty on worldwide per-­
capita targets for natural resource extraction and consumption—somewhere between
three and eight tonnes of primary raw material use.


10

H. Lehmann et al.

1.4.1  Some Indispensable Elements of a Policy Mix Are

Changing the fiscal system: markets do not operate perfectly, market prices are
wrong due to discounted externalities, relevant information is not available to the
actors and innovation barriers exist. Adjusting the fiscal framework is therefore the
most fundamental and urgent pre-requisite for approaching a sustainable future.
Subsidies that increase the consumption of natural resources must be eliminated,
and economic instruments should be deployed to facilitate a shift away from overheads on labour and towards taxing raw materials—which induces job creation and
facilitate income redistributing to developing countries where many of the resources
come from—and create new markets with tradable permits. Instead of applying
value added taxation to final goods it may be more effective to tax natural resources
at the point at which they are removed from nature or where they enter the industrial
metabolism, i.e., the so called “material added tax”.
Minimising the use of resources should be prescribed by law. Resource conservation legislation is still in its infancy owing to the extreme complexity and diversity
of resource use and the traditionally medium oriented structure of environmental
control legislation. To remedy this situation, a basic resource law needs to encompass the entire supply chain, just as resource protection itself does. The interlocking
nature of resource conservation also means that laws in this domain need to address
not only environmental regulations, but also a whole host of other legal domains
(see the work of the German Environmental Agency on a “Resource Protection
Law”; Alsleben et al. 2013).
We must significantly decrease the land take for settlements and transport infrastructures as well as for mining sites. “Land take” means the transformation of
agricultural land, forests or still quite natural areas into artificial surfaces where soil
is degraded by compression, sealing or complete destruction (this was already discussed in the nineties – e.g. Lehmann et al. 1995).
In the German National Sustainability Strategy, Federal Government set a goal
to reduce land take for settlements and transport infrastructures to 30 hectares a day
by the year 2020. Actually in the year 2015, daily land take in Germany still amounts
to 61 hectares. Despite of a considerable reduction of land take, due to demographic
change and many minor steps of different policies, we are still far from reaching the
30 hectares goal. As the enlargement of infrastructures and settlements swallows
high amounts of material and energy during construction and also causes high
inputs of materials and energy for heating, cooling and illumination as well as for
maintenance during their whole lifetime. Reducing land take is crucial for future

resource efficiency. The German Climate Protection Plan even states that by 2050
land take should be replaced completely by the recycling of already degraded land.
Also, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations declare
in Target 15.3 that we should set course, by 2030, to a degradation neutral world
(“By 2030 …. Strive to achieve a degradation neutral world”). Spatial planning and
mining law offer considerable potential for greater integration of resource conservation goals and in their implementation these laws could help ensure that resources
and raw materials are used more efficiently (see the UBA position paper

www.ebook3000.com


1  Factor X – 25 Years – “Factor X Concept” Is Essential for Achieving Sustainable…

11

“Environmentally sustainable use of the subsurface and resource conservation”,
Penn-Bressel et al. 2014).
Other instruments and measures should be considered as well, such as information and coordination instruments and command and control mechanisms (e.g.
adoption of standards). Legal frameworks should introduce and enforce a common
material productivity indicator (label) for all goods and services and initiate a systematic R&D program for gaining information on all ecological, social and economic issues related to natural resources. Moreover, a public information and data
centre on all issues related to natural resources should be established.

1.4.2  Happiness, a New Leitmotif
The consumption of goods has become equated with prosperity, and therefore represents a potent leitmotif for prosperity—for well-“having”—for many members of our
society. But is this really “prosperity”? It certainly is, in the sense of having or possessing and in the sense of being able to demonstrate one’s social rank and status.
But consumption does not necessarily mean prosperity in the sense of well“being”—which includes intangible elements such as having time for oneself and
experiencing the true joys of life. Prosperity in its widest sense means occupation,
education, health, security (social and political), the absence of violence, information, liberalness, communication, free time, equal rights for all, the rule of law and
environmental quality. Non-material thing, like the enjoyment of intact natural surroundings or the development of one’s own personality, will once again rank higher
than the possession and consumption of material, tangible goods like, e.g., a car.

For this reason, the path towards a viable future society involves leasing and renting goods, as opposed to owning them; recycling and the efficient use of resources
to produce material goods and energy, as opposed to unbridled growth in consumption. These will hopefully become more and more established as a new leitmotif for
the majority of society. To this end, modern and traditional knowledge, ethical values, wisdom and spirituality should inspire us to answer the question: “How much
is enough?”
Disclaimer  This paper does not necessarily reflect the opinion or the policies of the German
Federal Environment Agency.

References
Alsleben C et  al (2013) Ressourcenschutzrecht. Positionspapier Umweltbundesamt, Dezember
2013
BMUB – Federal Ministry for the environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
(2012) German resource efficiency program (ProgRess) – program for the sustainable use and
conservation of natural resources. Berlin


12

H. Lehmann et al.

BMUB – Federal Ministry for the environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
(2016) German resource efficiency program II (ProgRess II) – program for the sustainable use
and conservation of natural resources. Berlin
Bringezu S (2015) Possible target corridor for sustainable use of global material resources.
Resources 4:25–54
Factor 10 Club (1994) Declaration of the international resolution
G7 (2015) Leadersʼ declaration G7 summit, 7–8 June 2015, Schloß Elmau. />www.g7germany.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2015–06-08-g7
Lehmann H, Pareyke R, Pfluger A, Reetz T (1995) Land use in Europe – actual status and a possible sustainable scenario, Wuppertal Texte, Wuppertal Institute
Lehmann H, Schmidt-Bleek F (1993) Material flows from a systematical point of view. Fresen
Environ Bull 2:413–418
Lutter S, Giljum S, Lieber M, Manstein C (2016) The use of natural resources. Report for Germany

2016. German Environment Agency. www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/resourcesreport2016
Penn-Bressel G et  al (2014) Umweltverträgliche Nutzung des Untergrundes und
Ressourcenschonung Anforderungen an eine Raumordnung unter Tage und ein modernes
Bergrecht. Positionspapier Umweltbundeamt, November 2014
Schmidt-Bleek F (1992) Materialintensität – Ein ökologisches Maß für denVergleich von Maßnahmen,
Produkten und Dienstleistungen. Magazin des WissenschaftszentrumWissenschaftszentrums
von NRW, Düsseldorf, 1992
Schmidt-Bleek F (1993) Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch. MIPS – Faktor 10 – das Maß für
ökologisches Wirtschaften. Birkhäuser, 1993. München:dtv
Schmidt-Bleek F et al (1993) Fresenius Environ Bull 2(8)
UNEP (2016) Resource efficiency: potential and economic implications. A report of the international resource panel. Summary for policy-makers. Ekins P Hughes N et al
Weizsäcker E Lovins A Lovins H (1997) Factor four. Doubling wealth, halving resource use.
Earthscan, London. (The book was first published in 1995 in its German translation “, Faktor
Vier”)

www.ebook3000.com


Chapter 2

Necessities for a Resource Efficient Europe
Leida Rijnhout, Magda Stoczkiewicz, and Meadhbh Bolger

Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever
in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
Attributed to Kenneth Boulding (United States Congress 1973)

Abstract  In this article, the authors list some of the main challenges that need to be
overcome in order to make the transition to a Europe founded on resource justice,
arguing that it is important to move beyond focusing solely on resource efficiency

to a focus on reducing absolute resource use. Despite increased awareness about the
importance of protecting the environment, mainstream economic theory and practice, as well as mainstream politics and governance, still fails to consider environmental costs; Europe’s absolute resource use remains one of the highest globally
and it continues to use more than its fair share of resources. Europe is highly dependent on imported resources causing significant negative impacts in third countries,
including the Global South. To address this, the authors argue that it is essential to
measure and monitor all the resources embodied in a product throughout its full
life-cycle, from extraction to consumption taking a consumption-based, or footprint, approach. The authors show how the EU’s Resource Efficiency Roadmap, 7th
Environmental Action Plan and Circular Economy Package do not sufficiently
reflect the justice aspects of resource use or ensure coherence with other policies.
They highlight levels which need to be addressed for resource justice agenda including governance, financial tools and structures, social innovation and behaviour
change, alternative business models as well as legal and regulatory frameworks. The
authors argue that the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda should be taken as
overall framework to support more coherent policymaking. Finally, they argue that
we should move beyond ‘resource efficiency’ to ‘resource sufficiency’, and fit our
economies into “one-planet-lifestyles”.

L. Rijnhout (*) M. Stoczkiewicz • M. Bolger
Friends of the Earth Europe, Mundo-b building, Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050,
Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: ; ;

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
H. Lehmann (ed.), Factor X, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science 32,
/>
13


14

L. Rijnhout et al.

Keywords  Sustainable lifestyles • Resource sufficiency • Environmental and social
justice • Friends of the Earth Europe • Policy coherence • Degrowth

2.1  Introduction
Climate change, wars over water, premature deaths caused by air pollution; it is now
impossible to ignore the environmental and social costs of our production and consumption patterns.
During the 1970s, a general awareness of the necessity to protect our environment
and to manage and maintain our natural resources for future generations began to
arise. Publications such as the Limits to Growth (Meadows et  al. 1972), Factor 4
(Lovins et  al. 1998) and Small is Beautiful (Schumacher 1974) became essential
reading for concerned students and journalists. Nevertheless, this never broke through
to mainstream economic theory and practice; especially not in the ivory towers of the
economics departments at Universities, governments and business schools.
It is remarkable that mainstream economic theory and practice still fails to integrate environmental costs. It is a scientific fact that both natural resources and the
absorption capacity of environmental damage are limited, and to not consider this in
economic modelling is undoubtedly irresponsible. The global economic system
remains organised in a way that ignores the “polluter pays” principle, with a pricing
system that does not reflect the true costs of products on the market.
On a global scale, there are striking figures relating to the exponential growth in
consumption of natural resources in the twentieth century (Fig.  2.1), including
increases in fossil fuel extraction by a factor of 12, ores and minerals by a factor of
27 and construction materials by a factor of 34 – whilst the population only grew by
a factor of 3.7 (Krausmann et al. 2009). The world’s richest countries are consuming, on average, 10 times as many materials as the poorest countries (UNEP 2016a).

Fig. 2.1  Global material extraction by resource type and GDP (1990–2009) (Source: European
Commission 2016a)

www.ebook3000.com

2  Necessities for a Resource Efficient Europe

15

It is clear the world is consuming beyond what the planet can sustain – but what is
Europe’s share in this?
Europe has historically been dependent on resources from the Global South, and
the pattern continues today: the flow of natural resources is much greater from
South to North than vice-versa. When talking about natural resources, we are not
only speaking of minerals and fossil fuels, but also about water, land and forests. We
live in an extractive and globalised economy, where most countries considered well
developed in economic terms, including the majority of European countries, rely
heavily on resources from third countries, including the Global South. This is far
from sustainable, but also unjust, as we are blocking development opportunities of
communities in the Global South who need resources for their own development
needs.
Despite using resources more efficiently, over the past few decades Europe’s
consumption of raw materials has increased in absolute terms (EEA 2012) (this
trend has only recently been interrupted by the economic downturn, but is likely to
resume unless action is taken). Europe is still one of the highest consuming continents on the globe and we continue to consume more than our fair share (EEA
2015). In 2010, we had an annual per capita material footprint of 20 tonnes, second
only to the United States. By comparison, Africa’s footprint was below 3 tonnes per
capita (UNEP 2016a). Our absolute rise in resource use, despite increases in productivity and efficiency, is also evidence of the so called “rebound effect” in action
and should serve as a warning that focusing on resource efficiency and technological innovation alone might be insufficient.

2.2  Europe’s Share
Europe is highly dependent on imported natural resources for our economic activities (EEA 2015). In 2014, the EU imported over 50% of its energy, with four
Member States importing over 80% (Eurostat 2016a). According to the most recent
data, 40% of the EU land footprint for agricultural products comes from regions
outside the EU (Fig. 2.2), increasing to 65% for non-food cropland (FoEE 2016).

The picture is the same for raw materials: the EU is highly dependent on imports of
many metal ores and natural rubber, and imports nearly 100% of numerous materials including cobalt, tin, iron, bauxite (aluminium) and rare earth elements (European
Commission 2016a).
This makes the European economy vulnerable to price fluctuations and increases,
− around 40% of European manufacturers’ costs are for resources (Greenovate!
Europe 2012) – but it is also simply a matter of injustice. We are exporting negative
impacts of products consumed in Europe. This includes social impacts such as land
grabbing in the Global South in the rush to grow large plantations to supply palm oil
to the European market, and environmental impacts such as water stresses in many
villages in – for instance – Peru because of the production of asparagus for European
consumption.


16

L. Rijnhout et al.

Fig. 2.2  The EU land footprint (Source: FoEE 2016; Lindsay Noble design)

A lot of attention in the EU is currently focused on improving the recycling and
re-use of materials. This is indeed vital, given that over 50% of municipal waste
continues to be landfilled and incinerated in Europe (Eurostat 2016b). However, at
the same time, it is not the answer to our overconsumption crisis. Demand for raw
materials outweighs the volume of recycled or reused materials available on the
market (European Commission 2016a). Much of the problem indeed relates to technical limitations in recycling and reuse due to the current design of products and the
types and combinations of materials used. However, studies also show that even if

www.ebook3000.com