By  Jill Jaeger

The first part of the analysis is quite correct. Emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase and indeed forestation is one solution to the problem. The proposed solution is interesting but from an earth system perspective we should be wary of large-scale technical solutions. They could have side-effects that could also have planetary implications, such as, with the solution proposed, large-scale changes of albedo, surface roughness and moisture. Large-scale use of nuclear energy is also questioned from a sustainability point of view. As the Earth System challenges chapter and the Drivers chapter of GEO-5 suggest, it is necessary to tackle the drivers of change rather than the effects. Emissions reductions through gains in efficiency and a serious move towards sufficiency are called for.

By  Robert A. Wabunoha

There are many MEAs in the Africa region but the most prominent ones are the Bamako Convention on movement of hazardous wastes and the Maputo Convention on environment and natural resources. The other MEAs in Africa are mostly of a sub-regional character. Of course the rest of the MEAs are of a global character. The Maputo Convention has not gone into force since 2002 when it was signed as the required number of ratifications by the member countries have not been reached. Bamako convention is in force but it has not held its first conference of the parties and therefore no mechanism has been set up to ensure its compliance and enforcement. Both of these conventions have the African Union as their interim Secretariats. The other regional mechanisms to assist in the enforcement are coordinated by the various MEA Secretariats and supported by UN agencies such as UNEP. For example, the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions on coastal and marine matters have their own enforcement mechanisms coordinated by the respective secretariats and supported by UNEP.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Dear Yannick,

Good question! Transportation is a hard nut to crack even in countries that have an otherwise good reputation regarding environmental policy. Of course, you are quite right that building more infrastructure makes the problem worse. However, there are big lobbies supporting the transport sector and policy -making does not take a systemic point of view, so have a disconnect between climate policy and transport policy.

I don't think we should "accept these emissions as a given" - if we had to pay the true price for fuel (i.e. including the environmental impacts - and in some case health and other social impacts) we would surely see a reduction in unnecessary transport, a move to produce much more efficient vehicles, a shift to using trains etc etc. This is all part of the move to a Green Economy, as discussed in detail in the UNEP report.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Dear Catherine,

I typed in an answer twice yesterday but somehow the system did not accept it. I hope it works today. Thanks for your very good question. It is clear that when we talk about sustainability we need to consider the three pillars – environment, social and economic – and indeed the trade-offs between them. I think that an important way forward is in dialogue processes in which all actors engage in a discussion about „What is the problem?“, then develop a common vision of where we want to be in the future and then experiment with and learn from attempts to achieve the joint vision. This is very much what is done in „transition arenas“ developed by the community working on „transition management“. You might want to look at transition management work, a lot of it comes from the Netherlands, as an approach. Clearly the way forward depends a lot on developing long-term, iterative processes of dialogue and learning.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Dear Philippa,

Thanks for your question. I agree that we need to encourage change. I don't think we can forcce it! We can, however, do a much better job in clarifying what we know. Importantly, however, and this is reflected in some answers to other questions, we can organize processes in which the educators and policy makers participate together with other actors (including the science community) in order to jointly find solutions.

History tells us that humans usually don't react until the crisis is evident - this is bad news, because it means that the "celebrity life-style" will continue to be increasingly popular until people see the consequences. However, there is also increasing evidence that people are becoming dissatisfied with "keeping up with the Joneses" (burnout, depression), so we should be ready with examples of good practice that would attract them to a new pathway.

By  Roy Watkinson, GEO-5 Author

Dear Maurice you have neatly posed a number of questions for me to speculate on. First of all definitions -the elaboration of the term Green or (Sustainable) Chemistry (or Technology), its principles and its relationship with tools such as Life Cycle assessment are areas all worthy of consideration in their own right. Then what is meant by implementation; does this mean application at the production level or a process of regulatory control? Finally implicit in this question is the notion that the application of green chemistry itself might incur cost/regulatory burdens or restrictions that would cause manufacturers to shift their site of production (maybe using less green technology) from a more highly regulated environment (in one country) to one with less strict control and with a consequent lowering of health safety and environment standards.

Green chemistry was I think originally defined as “the use of chemistry for pollution prevention by means of a proper design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances” by Anastas and Warner. (The latter point is of most interest to me as hazardous substance reduction means less hazardous waste produced and a lower potential environmental impact.) With that in mind we can consider if implementation is about application (production process) or regulation – linking it to health and safety implies elements of both. Does green chemistry have the tendency to drive production to places with lower regulatory standards? I don’t think this is necessarily so. As a means of reducing waste production at source and lowering energy costs green chemistry might also be considered as an approach that reduces hazard and can improve environmental health and safety standards and lower costs in situ. For example the UK developed an approach in the 1990s to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of manufacturing production under a programme called “Environmental Technology Best Practice” (later, “Envirowise”). This was geared in part towards improvements to existing process, reducing cost, not exporting techniques abroad. Substitution of say water-based paint production instead of (organic ) solvent based paint has not to my knowledge for example resulted in the shift of production of one major paint manufacturer in the UK I can think of. Evidence does suggest though that chemicals production generally has been shifting over the past decades from OECD to non-OECD countries. The main reasons may be found in other factors, labour cost for example, although the risk of different health and safety standards will exist.

Taking the perspective from waste management (as I am always bound to!) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Waste and their Disposal) the Convention urges Parties to minimize the production of hazardous waste and of it transboundary movement. Given that most products end up as waste some time in their life cycle the extension of that commitment implies that greener production is a technique that supports the principles of Basel and environmentally sound management. More attention to this approach, in concert with green chemistry, is desirable in its own right. With the vast majority of States being contracting parties to the Basel Convention green chemistry may be seen as one way of providing assistance to meet the obligations of environmentally sound management.

Maurice – many thanks for an interesting question with many (more) ramifications.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Dear Sophie,

I agree with you that the word "sustainable" is used for many things that are not really sustainable. The word is used sloppily as an adjective that has become very popular and often misused. I think that processes of dialogue about "what do we meana by sustainability" need to proceed all attempts at so-called problem-solving. We also need, as you say, other metrics for progress that take the value of ecosystem services into account and that measure improved well-being of humans and the planet rather than accelerated deterioration.

Thanks for your input.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Hi Clyde, I would imagine that this would be many people's vision of susainability and that serious attempts are being made in many places to implement such solutions. The examples of good practice can act as an inspiration to others. Holistic solutions tackling connected problems in a systemic way are indeed what is needed.

By  Jill Jäger, GEO-5 Author

Dear Maurice,

Thanks for your question. My answer is similar to another one that I provided. Insome places and in some contexts second generation biofuel could play an important role. What is missing is an overall susainability assessment of such proposals in terms of the environmental effects, economic effects and socio-economic implication without an integrated sustainability assessment we run the risk of solving one problem and creating others.

By  Roy Watkinson, GEO-5 Author

Zero waste - Political aspiration or practical application? From Canberra to Edinburgh (and stops in between).

Prab, your experience suggests that there is more than one definition or interpretation of what zero waste means and that the current view is that the zero waste option chosen is a matter of selecting the definition that is best fitted to the circumstances of the user.

It has always seemed to me that the term inherently expresses an aspiration rather than a realisable goal, until qualified e.g.: zero waste to landfill, zero waste landfilled and incinerated, etc. and this can include liquid waste and energy use too. Without such qualification it becomes difficult to implement as a practical objective for which real targets can be created against which performance can be measured and results published. Without these factors the term would be meaningless.

In any event I doubt that any system involving waste management can be strictly zero waste as it implies a condition where the inputs – products – either have infinite useful lives and are never discarded and the outputs – end of life products – tend to zero.

So in one sense you are not correct to say that the term is misused as it takes a variety of forms and is flexible in application, so it cannot be misused, it is simply adapted! This doesn’t lead to great clarity and hence to my mind will always need to be carefully defined by the user. Is a standard definition necessary? I would say this is not a huge priority just yet as certainly from the international perspective a lot more effort is needed to better understand waste generation and flows, improve the environmentally sound management of waste, including municipal and hazardous waste, before refining this terminology. In the meantime we can also rely on waste minimization, waste avoidance, re-use, 3R, resource recovery and a host of other terms some being brought into legislative instruments (such as the EU revised Waste Framework Directive) to keep us busy. Scotland of course has also gone down this route with an ambitious plan backed by legislation to increase recycling (see Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/314168/0099749.pdf) and reduce waste to landfill. (A mere 16 years or so after Canberra).

I do see some dangers in too literal an interpretation of zero waste that may erroneously favour actions that are wasteful themselves. It’s not just about maximising recycling.In an integrated approach to energy and materials use a balance of the life cycle of the products (or production) and use during consumption is needed. A simple example of selecting recyclable materials for beverage containers that are actually collected for recycling may regarded as good by avoiding landfill (or incineration) but may not be as energy efficient as re-using a drinking mug. The work done on attempting to determine the life cycle costs of disposal and re-useable nappies though illustrates the challenges in deciding which is the overall preferred option.

So I would let your companies and organisations use this term as a title for an element of a policy describing part of an environmental policy, for example, but challenge them to come up with a practical and defensible elaboration of what it means for them, and describe it wisely, using the criteria set out at the top of this response. Not just zero waste to landfill but making an evaluation of patterns of procurement, consumption and production taking into account energy and natural material flows and costs to minimise the environmental impact and maximise renewable cycles.

Many thanks for a stimulating question, Prab.