|
|
|
| |
The
Natural Advantage of Nations (Vol. I): Business Opportunities,
Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century
|
|
| |
 This
book is about innovation, solutions, competitiveness
and profitability. It is also about building environmental
integrity and sustainability now and for future generations.
It draws a bold vision for the future and tells us
how to get there by building on the lessons of competitive
advantage theory and the latest in sustainability,
economics, innovation, business and governance theory
and practice. The authors incorporate innovative technical,
structural and social advances, and explore the role
that governance can play in both leading and underpinning
business and communities in the shift towards a sustainable
future. The result is nothing less than the most authoritative
and comprehensive guide to building the new ecologically
sustainable economy. (more...)
|
|
| |
Chapter
1 (Part 7) - Implications and benefits for global
development
There has also been a significant shift in our understanding
of how sustainable development which seeks to improve
resource productivity can also help sustain economic
growth, and thus assist global development this
century. It is physically impossible for all developing
nations to achieve Western material living standards
with previous modes of development, as the global
‘ecological footprint’[57]
(the equivalent land and water area required to
produce a given population’s material standard,
including resources appropriated from other places)
is already greater than the carrying capacity of
our planet.
If China were to consume seafood at the per
capita rate of Japan, it would need 100 million
tonnes, more than today’s total catch. If
China’s beef consumption was to match the
USA’s per capita consumption and if that beef
was produced mainly in feedlot, this would take
grain equivalent to the entire US harvest.
Sustainable Consumption – A UNEP Global Status
Report, 2002
Achieving a high level of resource productivity
and efficiency will also assist in positive global
economic development, as at present approximately
25 per cent of global development aid capital is
spent on energy.[58]
Governments, such as China’s, are increasingly
focusing on efficient energy use in future development
models:
When Chinese authorities decided to make refrigerators
more accessible, they imported numerous assembly
lines. The saturation of refrigerators in Beijing
households rose from 2 per cent to 62 per cent in
six years, but the refrigerators’ inefficient
design created $500 million in unintended shortages
of power and of capital to generate it. A cabinet
member said that this error must not be repeated:
energy and resource efficiency must be the cornerstone
of the development process. Otherwise resource waste
will require supply side investment of the capital
meant to buy the devices that were supposed to use
those resources. This realisation contributed to
China’s emphasis on energy efficiency (halving
primary energy/GDP elasticity in the 1980s and nearly
rehalving it since), laying the foundation for the
1996 shift from coal to gas, renewables, and efficiency
– the greatest contribution of any nation
so far to reducing greenhouse emissions.[59]
Amory Lovins (2004)
Many countries, including China, are now focused
on water efficiency strategies to forestall the
need for additional dams. One of the key findings
of a landmark report from the World Commission on
Dams (WCD), headed by Nelson Mandela, was that few
dams have ever been analysed to see if the benefits
outweighed the real costs. It reported that the
construction of dams has been the biggest single
drain on aid budgets for the past 50 years, costing
US$4 billion annually, for instance, in the 1980s.[60]
The report also found that dam building has driven
up to 80 million people from their homes; that shallow
dams in the tropics are significant greenhouse gas
emitters due to rotting vegetation, and, surprisingly,
some dams were found to be larger greenhouse emitters
than coal-fired power stations.[61]
Whilst there is growing awareness of the need to
change and of the multiple benefits of sustainable
development, there is still ‘business as usual’
inertia from governments and some business sectors
because many continue to believe, incorrectly, that
sustainable development will significantly harm
economic growth. This debate matters because the
result of the current belief that sustainable development
will hurt economic growth is that governments, research
and development (R&D) institutions and companies
have not been encouraged as much as they could have
been to explore economically feasible and desirable
paths to an ecologically sustainable economy.
It used to be assumed that economic growth entailed
parallel growth in resource consumption and, to
a certain extent, environmental degradation. However,
the experience of the last few decades indicates
that economic growth and resource consumption and
environmental degradation can be decoupled to a
considerable extent. As Philip Sutton, founder and
Director of Strategy, Green Innovations Inc, explains,
the traditional assumption arises from a simple
semantic confusion:[62]
When businesses and governments talk about growth
they generally mean economic growth. They mean (assuming
the expenditure model of measuring GDP) the amount
of monetary transactions as measured by the GDP.
When environmentalists talk about growth they mean
physical growth, resource consumption with concurrent
environmental degradation. But economic and physical
growth are not the same thing. Economic growth is
an acceleration in the production of economic value.
Physical growth of the economy means it spreads
over more area or has a larger material and energy
throughput or has a larger stock of physical products
or buildings or infrastructure. Certainly for most
of the last 200 years these two forms of growth
have moved in lock-step. So it is not surprising
that the iron law ‘economic growth = physical
growth’ has lodged itself firmly people’s
minds.
However there is now both significant evidence of
a decoupling of economic growth from physical growth
and greater knowledge of how to achieve this through
much of the economy. In the US, for seven years
after the OPEC oil price shock of 1979, the economy
grew by 19 per cent while energy use fell by 6 per
cent. Over the last 30 years the UK’s GDP
has doubled yet CO2 emissions and energy use have
increased marginally. The UK has achieved a significant
decoupling of GDP growth, energy use and CO2 emissions.
In the US between 1980 and 1995 the amount of fresh
water withdrawn per American fell by 21 per cent
and water withdrawn per dollar of real GDP fell
by 38 per cent. This empirical experience challenges
the iron law.
In fact, recent research is showing that a transition
to a sustainable economy, if focused on improving
resource productivity, will lead to higher economic
growth than business as usual, while at the same
time reducing pressures on the environment and enhancing
employment. This has been shown by economic modelling
in Europe by ex-Wuppertal Institute member Joachim
Spangenberg working with neo-classical economists.
The project was called Labour and Environment, and
Joachim is currently working in a team to demonstrate
this fact with global economic scenario models used
in several EU funded projects, including one called
Modelling Opportunities and Limits for Restructuring
Europe Towards Sustainability (MOSUS). Some
of the factors that allow higher than expected economic
growth from sustainable development are described
here.
First, as we have shown, there exist great opportunities
for increased resource productivity, and large radical
resource productivity gains often cost less than
smaller resource productivity gains. Second, obviously
many of the direct and indirect costs of large-scale
environmental damage and resource depletion will
be avoided at significantly less cost and the economy
will be protected from environmentally induced destabilization.
Third, during the transition to a fully operational
ecologically sustainable economy, which would be
a period of several decades at least, the economy
would have a strong structural tendency to higher
levels of employment. The structural tendency to
favour higher employment is caused by three things:
(i) the recycling of revenues from eco-taxes to
reduce payroll taxes or other costs of employing
labour; (ii) the greater labour intensity of new
ways of doing things where the technology and the
manufacturing and operational techniques are not
yet highly refined; and (iii) the pumppriming effect
of investments brought forward to replace scrapped
capital.
Fourth, a strongly green economy will enhance the
dynamics of the economy to favour the greatest source
of productivity improvement in the modern economy
– the information sector. To create economic
wealth with significantly lower physical resource
inputs and environmental impact is going to require
clever development; and clever development depends
on a strong information economy. Skilled labour,
sophisticated machinery and technology, and lots
of top quality information will be needed. Fifth,
contrary to the intuition of many economists and
the ideology of many politicians, wise social spending
has contributed to, rather than inhibited, economic
growth. This is one of the conclusions of a recently
published respected historical study by Peter Lindert
called Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic
Growth Since the Eighteenth Century. This extensive
study on whether social policies that redistribute
income impose constraints on economic growth concluded
that, contrary to traditional beliefs, the net national
costs of government social programmes are virtually
zero.
Sixth, corruption around the world is widely regarded
as one of the biggest impediments to sustainable
development. Removing corruption will not just help
to create a more just and sustainable world but
would also assist economic growth. The World Bank
Development Report summed it up well in 1997 when
it discussed how corruption also harms economic
growth especially over the long-term because it
leads to suboptimal decision-making by governments.
Seventh, properly designed eco-taxes can be used
to increase firm level productivity and economic
growth. Many papers including OECD reports have
shown how revenues raised from eco-taxes are expected
to create virtually fully offsetting output and
productivity gains in other parts of the economy
provided they are channelled back into the economy
in the most effective ways. There are many other
significant reasons and we consider some of them
now in more detail.
Eighth, new design for sustainability ideas on how
to design the built environment, well summarized
in books such as Green Development: Integrating
Ecology and Real Estate,[63]
can have remarkably positive effects on a nation’s
GNP, because construction and the built environment
make up a very large fraction of GNP – for
instance 9 per cent in the US and 18 per cent in
Japan. Therefore, even small improvements in construction
techniques can have effects on national income that
are large compared with more exciting basic science
discoveries. The lesson from the remarkable growth
rates of Japan over a significant part of the last
40 years is clear: seemingly mundane forms of applied
research, such as design work or product and process
engineering, can have large cumulative benefits
for the firm that undertakes them and even larger
benefits for society as a whole.
There is increasing interest in the link between
urban development and economic growth. Mainstream
concern about these issues is such that the US Newsweek
magazine dedicated an entire special issue on Asia’s
urban explosion. Newsweek wrote: ‘Rome
was the first settlement to reach 1 million people
in 5 BC and only in 1800 did London become the second.
By 2015 Asia alone will have 267 cities with 1 million
or more residents. Urbanization will either make
or break the Asian miracle economies. The growth
of many cities in Asia is astounding. In 25 years
from now most Asians will live in cities and towns.’[64]
Dhaka, Mumbai and Delhi will number among the world’s
five largest cities[65]
and Asia, as a whole, will account for 12 of the
world’s largest 21 cities by 2015. Today’s
largest metropolis is Tokyo, which has an estimated
27 million residents. By 2050, trends suggest there
will be over 50 mega-cities globally, with most
of them in Asia.[66]
Figure 1.5 Historic and future
trends for urbanization of developing and transition
countries
(Source: World Bank 2003)
In Section 4 we will show in detail that, if cities
adopt sustainable development, it will help them
foresee and overcome many of the problems of rapid
urbanization. For example, one of the biggest influences
on the economic costs of cities are the transport
choices made by urban designers. It has long been
believed that building roads is good for the economy
of cities while public transport is a financial
drain. A report to the World Bank (published in
Sustainability and Cities[67])
prepared by researchers at Murdoch University is
turning this way of thinking on its head.
Professor Peter Newman says: ‘they have found
that cities that emphasize walking, cycling and
public transport are healthier financially and spend
less of their wealth on transport costs. The six
cities that came out the best were cities like Zurich,
Copenhagen, Stockholm – very wealthy cities
now, which spend only 4 or 5 per cent of their wealth
on transport, and yet they are the cities that are
putting their money into public transport. And the
cities still pouring money into freeways use up
to 17 per cent of their wealth. Australian and US
cities like Perth and Phoenix are wasting far more
of their valuable wealth on just getting around.
Our data would really question that freeway building
has any economic rationale; unless you are building
up the rail system (as in Perth) you are not going
to help it economically. As soon as you put in big
roads, you create a market for city sprawl and this
is very expensive. If you build railways, particularly
light rail, it concentrates a city as developers
like building around it, thus helping to stop the
sprawl. Then you get a whole lot of flow ons.’
The study also found that the mechanisms driving
this additional cost include the following:
• The land required to build the infrastructure
and its subsequent requirements for parking; a
single lane of railway can carry up to 50,000
persons per hour, a bus way can carry 7000 persons
per hour and a highway lane just 2500 persons
per hour.[68]
• The direct cost to households of owning
a car are considerable, especially if it is a
second or third car. A study in Australia showed
that a household could save AU$750,000 over a
lifetime if a second car could be avoided.
• The opportunity cost of such capital and
land can be considerable if seen on a whole city
basis. The difference between the most competitive
cities, in terms of their transportation costs as
a proportion of city wealth, and the least competitive
(5–8 per cent compared to 12–18 per
cent) can be equivalent to an extra day a week of
work in car dependent cities.[69]
A still more recent study of 84 cities undertaken
by Kenworthy and Laube,[70]
has shown that cities with well designed public
transport systems have significantly less total
transport costs, as a proportion of their city wealth,
than those which have built in a heavy reliance
on freeways and cars.[71]
There is still further evidence that a transition
to sustainable transport need not harm economic
growth. In fact, an important new study provides
significant evidence to support the notion that
it would be highly profitable for major nations
to make the transition to get off oil. Rocky Mountain
Institute (RMI) has released Winning the Oil Endgame:
Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and Security,[72]
a Pentagon cofunded blueprint for making the US
oil-free. Winning the Oil Endgame proves viable
ways exist through which, by 2015, the US can save
more oil than it gets from the Persian Gulf; by
2025, use less oil than in 1970; by 2040, import
no oil; and by 2050, use no oil at all. ‘For
the first time, RMI’s report adds up the new
ways to provide all the services now obtained from
oil, but without using oil – which will save
us $70 billion a year’, concludes Amory Lovins
the lead author of this new study.
Ninth, the potential benefits of energy efficiency
to the environment productivity and economic growth
are well documented. Numerous government programmes
demonstrate that significant energy efficiency savings
still exist in all OECD modern economies and even
more so in developing or rapidly emerging economies.
In their publication Energy Security Facts:
Details and Documentation, Rocky Mountain Institute
(RMI) argues that there are still US$300 billion
of available savings through better energy efficiency
in the US economy. The recent White Paper on energy
for Australia estimated that there are still close
to a billion dollars that could be added to the
nation’s GDP through energy efficiency in
the commercial sector alone. But this ignores significant
gains to the economy possible in the residential
sector. In Section 4 we discuss how the economic
benefits of more energy efficient homes have been
demonstrated by a recent economic study by Allen
Consulting (see Chapter 17). They showed remarkably
that 5-star energy efficient homes would be better
for the economy than 4-star homes, leading to the
adoption of 5-star standards for new homes by the
State Government of Victoria in Australia. Section
4 features many more studies and evidence to support
this line of argument.
Another significant work by Fairbanks and Lindsey[73]
provides further insights to the benefits of sustainable
development for countries’ standards of living
and economic growth. Their work shows that significant
economic benefits exist for developing countries
from diversifying their economies rather than relying
on exports of natural resources for their income
(often at considerable environmental and social
cost).
Fairbanks and his colleagues, at the On the Frontier
Group, work with ‘emerging economies’
to assist in identifying and acting upon opportunities
to achieve international competitive advantage with
their firms. Their work has shown that emerging
economies can find additional opportunities to add
value and help break the poverty cycle and point
out that: ‘The challenge that business and
political leaders of those countries face is twofold:
(i) to develop more sophisticated sources of advantage
that are not so easily imitated, and (ii) to realize
that depleting natural resources and suppressing
wages will not lead to sustainable, long-term wealth
creation. It is critical for leaders to develop
the capacity to think about the future and to move
out of such unattractive ‘factor-based’
industries.
Fairbanks and Lindsay argue that emerging economies
that simply rely on their input conditions (raw
or natural resources) not only increase the risk
of reinforcing existing poverty traps, but they
can simultaneously miss opportunities to improve
the competitive advantage of and opportunities for
their firms. In addition, countries dependent on
key natural resources, and lacking diversity in
their economy are vulnerable to commodity price
shocks. Jeffrey Sachs and fellow economists at the
Harvard Institute for International Development
found, through statistical analysis, that the more
a developing country’s economy depended on
resource exports in 1971 the less it grew in per
capita terms between 1965 and 1990. Overall, among
the countries sampled, a 10 per cent point increase
in resource exports, as a share of GDP in 1971,
corresponded to a half-percentage point fall in
average growth over the 1965–1990 period.[74]
Ironically, overwhelming evidence indicates that
countries seemingly blessed with massive reserves
of oil and minerals and other natural resources
are, on average, not outperforming less resource
rich nations. Previously, having such natural resources
was believed to contribute to a nations ‘natural
advantage’ over others. However, this is no
longer the case. This reality has led to these same
resource rich countries attempting to remedy their
overall poor economic progress by liquidating their
natural assets (forests, mineral wealth or oil)
even faster. Over the past 50 years there has been
a consistent increase in the volume of natural resources
being extracted by developing countries. Today,
resource rich developing countries now mine five
times the copper they mined in 1955, pump six times
the oil and fell seven times the timber for paper
and lumber production.[75]
This
has occurred because it is relatively easy for companies
in resource rich developing nations to imitate OTHER
companies based on resource extraction. Firms competing
on low labour and resource costs also leave themselves
exposed if there are changes in other countries
that result in even lower labour and resource costs.
For instance, a rival firm may be granted subsidies
by the government of another country which enables
them to beat your price in the marketplace, no matter
how efficient you are. Second, technology has delivered
greater options to firms in the developed world
for reducing the relative advantage of cheap labour
and resource conditions in the ‘developing
world’. This paradox is commonly known as
the ‘Resource Curse’ and it has generated
much debate amongst experts globally. Other factors
that contribute to poor economic performance from
the ‘resource curse’ may include:[76]
• pressure on government by interests associated
with large scale resource companies;
• strong revenues flowing to government
from the resource sector;
• declining terms of trade (meaning that imports
outweigh exports);
• skills of workers not being easily transferable
to other industries; and
• lower multiplier effects for resource industries
than would exist for the same dollar utilized in
manufacturing, particularly export oriented manufacturing.
Rather, as we will show in detail in Section 2,
there is another way. The latest studies show that
it is the firms that are innovating for new emerging
markets and value adding that are the most profitable.
Fundamentally a firm can increase its productivity
by innovating to offer new services to more attractive
customers (product differentiation) or by creating
the same value with fewer inputs (operational efficiency).
New ideas like the pipes and pumps case study above
are increasingly being understood to help both operational
efficiency and product differentiation through helping
firms to create ‘greener’ products that
command higher prices in the marketplace. Intuitively
one would expect this to also assist economic growth
as well as assisting firms’ competitiveness.
New developments in economics now show that such
new ideas and innovations at the micro-economic
level do also assist economic growth. Significant
advances in economics are showing that new designs,
new ideas and innovations are very important to
achieving lasting economic growth. One of the chief
architects of this ‘New Growth Theory’,
Stanford economics Professor Paul Romer, shows that
economic growth does not arise just from accumulating
more capital. His work shows that is also arises
from new and better ideas expressed as technological
progress.
Before
New Growth Theory, economists recognized that technology
contributed substantially to growth, but they couldn’t
figure out how to incorporate rigorously and completely
that insight internally into their economic models.
Romer’s innovation, expressed in technical
articles with titles such as ‘Increasing Returns
and Long-Run Growth’ and ‘Endogenous
Technological Change’, has been to find ways
to describe rigorously and exactly how technological
progress brings about economic growth. In the old
growth models, the rate of technological progress
was assumed to be a given and was not modelled explicitly.
Rather it was simply set at a constant rate of productivity
growth. New growth theorists make technological
progress internal to their economic growth model
including modelling of R&D and technological
changes in production explicitly. In new growth
models, the rate of technological progress is determined
by aspects of the model itself rather than simply
been set at a constant rate of progress as it was
in the old growth models. This provides at least
a start to building economic models that link how
positive changes in the productivity at the firm
level influence economic growth at the macro-economic
level. This at least provides a start of the theoretical
foundation needed to model rigorously how improvements
in design, technological processes at the firm level
(outlined in detail in Section 2) can positively
effect macro-economic growth. Paul Romer writes:[77]
We now know that the classical economic suggestion
that we can grow rich by accumulating more and more
pieces of physical capital is simply wrong. The
problem an economy faces is what economists call
“diminishing returns”. In handling heavy
objects a forklift is a really useful piece of equipment.
When there were few fork lifts in the economy, the
return on an investment in an additional lift is
significant. But eventually buying additional forklifts
would have no value and become a nuisance (to the
firm). The return on investment in an additional
fork lift diminishes and eventually becomes negative.
As a result an economy cannot grow merely by accumulating
more and more of the same kind of capital goods.
Economic growth occurs whenever people take
resources and rearrange them in ways that are more
valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an
economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable
products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together
according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is
only limited by the supply of ingredients, and most
cooking in the economy produces undesirable side-effects.
If economic growth could be achieved only by doing
more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would
run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable
levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history
teaches us however that economic growth springs
from better recipes, not just from more cooking.
New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side-effects
and generate more economic value per unit of raw
material.
As we have stated (see the section on ‘A
critical mass of enabling technologies’
earlier in this chapter), the scale of the challenge
of achieving sustainability plus the remarkable
array of potential resource productivity gains that
exist in the economy provide a significant stimulus
for innovation this century. We propose then that
a transition to an ecologically sustainable economy
will help further drive the development of new designs,
methods and mechanisms to meet the needs of society
and, wisely done, could also stimulate economic
growth greater than business as usual.
To conclude, as well as all the benefits outlined
so far, this new development paradigm of sustainability
if pursued on a global scale, will offer still more
significant benefits for governments, society and
business. As the book will show, these benefits
include many indirect benefits such as benefits
to health,[79]
reduced numbers of environmental refugees, increased
resilience to infrastructure failure or terrorist
attack, plus many other benefits to national security.[80]
In Section 4 these benefits are discussed in detail.
Also security experts are now predicting that, unless
current unsustainable resource useage patterns change
to become sustainable, access to key raw resources,
such as oil and water, could be a potential source
of conflict this century.[81]
Today,
the US imports 50 per cent of their oil, Europe
70 per cent and it is estimated that China will
import 50 per cent of its oil within ten years.
On the economic front, key studies by experts in
the field report that the world is close to the
midpoint of world oil supplies,[82]
which has significant implications for balance of
payments. For instance, the forecasts for Australia
are that the AU$1.2 billion surplus in petroleum
products in 2000 will be a AU$7.6 billion deficit
in trade of liquid hydrocarbons by 2010.[83]
Therefore the choices urban designers and planners
make also have implications for national security
and the economy. Section 4 of the book will cover
these issues in detail. Finally pursuing sustainable
development will ensure that nations and their firms
who practise it will not face direct or indirect
trade sanctions from significant trading blocks
such as Europe on the grounds of environmental performance.
Hence this publication will show that wisely
applied sustainable development will lead in multiple
ways to a Natural Advantage of Nations.
|
|
| |
|
 References
57.
Every product we buy, every service we use, has an
impact on the planet, otherwise known as an environmental
load. This can be measured by measuring a product's
ecological footprint. How large that ecological footprint
is depends on the amount of energy and materials needed
to make, transport, package, market and approve it.
All products have this 'secret life' that most of
us never consider. (Back)
58.
Lovins, A. (2004) 'Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview
for Earth's Energy Balance', in Cleveland, C. J. (ed)
Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 1, Elsevier. (Back)
59.
Ibid, pp20-21. (Back)
60.
World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and Development:
A New Framework for Decision-making, The Report of
the World Commission on Dams, Earthscan, London. (Back)
61.
The International Rivers Network (IRN) has developed
a booklet providing background on the formation of
the WCD, a detailed summary of the WCD's findings
and recommendations, and responses from NGOs, institutions
and governments to the report. (Back)
62.
Sutton, P. (2000) 'Is it Possible for a Green Economy
to have High Economic Performance?' Green Innovations,
Melbourne (www.green-innovations.asn.au/econ-mdl.htm).
(Back)
63.
Wilson , A., Uncapher, J., McManigal, L., Lovins,
L. H., Cureton, M. and Browning, W. (1998) Green Development:
Integrating Ecology and Real Estate, Rocky Mountain
Institute/John Wiley & Sons. (Back)
64.
Newsweek Special Issue, 37, 'Boom Towns: Is Asia's
Urban Explosion a Blessing or a Curse?'. (Back)
65.
The World Federation of Engineering Organisations
(WFEO) has identified megacities as a major area of
concern for the future. (Back)
66.
World Bank (2003) World Bank Development Report 2003:
Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, Ch 6. (Back)
67.
Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability
and Cities, Island Press, Washington, DC. (Back)
68.
Kenworthy, J. (2003) Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse
Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems: A Study
of 84 Global Cities, as submitted to the International
Sustainability Conference: Second Meeting of the Academic
Forum of Regional Government for Sustainable Development
2003, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Perth.
(Back)
69.
Refer to Chapter 19 of this publication on Sustainable
Urban Transport, based on the findings of a study
of Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability
and Cities, Island Press, Washington, DC. (Back)
70.
Kenworthy, J.and Laube.F (2001) 'The Millennium Cities
Database for Sustainable Transport', Soziale Technik
4, pp17-18. (Back)
71.
Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1999) Sustainability
and Cities, Island Press, Washington, DC. (Back)
72.
Lovins, A., Datta, E. K. and others (2004) Winning
the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and
Security, Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado/Earthscan,
London. (Back)
73.
Fairbanks, M. and Lindsay, S. (1997) Plowing the Sea:
Nurturing the Hidden Sources of Growth in the Developing
World, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ch's
1-7 (with a Foreword by Michael E. Porter). (Back)
74.
Cited in Roodman, D. (1999) The Natural Wealth of
Nations: Harnessing the Market and the Environment,
Worldwatch Environment Alert Series, WW Norton, New
York/Earthscan, London, p55. (Back)
75.
Roodman, D. (1999) The Natural Wealth of Nations:
Harnessing the Market and the Environment, Worldwatch
Environment Alert Series, WW Norton, New York/Earthscan,
London, p54. (Back)
76.
Sheehy, B. and Dickie, P. (2002) 'Facing the Future',
Australian submission to the Report of the Mining
Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project
Breaking New Ground, MMSD/Earthscan, London. (Back)
77.
Romer, P. (1994) 'From Beyond Classical and Keynesian
Macroeconomic Policy', Policy Options, July-August.
(Back)
78.
Romer, P. (1993) 'Economic Growth', in Henderson,
D. R. (ed) The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics,
Warner Books. (Back)
79.
McMichael, A. (2002) 'The Biosphere, Human Health
and Sustainability', Science, vol 297, p1063; McMichael,
T. (2001) Human Frontiers, Environments and Disease:
Past Patterns, Uncertain Futures, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge; IPCC (2001a) Climate Change 2000,
IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Ch 5.
(Back)
80.
Lovins, A. and Lovins, L. H. (1982) Brittle Power,
Brick House. (Back)
81.
Klare, M. (2001) Resource Wars: The New Landscape
of Global Conflict, Henry Holt Books, New York. (Back)
82.
Robinson, B. (2002) Global Oil Vulnerability and the
Australian Situation, Issues and Background Paper
for the Western Australia State Sustainability Strategy,
Government of Western Australia. (Back)
83.
Government of Western Australia (2002) Focus on the
Future: The Western Australian State Sustainability
Strategy: Consultation Draft, Department of the Premier
and Cabinet, Perth, p198.
(Back)
|
|