Advertisement

Environmental Accounting, Absolute Limits, and Systemic Change

  • Kate Meyer
  • Peter Newman
Chapter
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

The level of change needed for humanity to operate within the planet’s limits will almost certainly require fundamentally altering the way we interact with the environment. We need urgent, systemic change.

Accounting theory shows that standards and limits are needed to create serious change. Measuring the changing state of the environment (environmental assets) and human pressures on the environment (environmental flows) is known as environmental accounting. Environmental accounting is used by many countries, cities, regions, and businesses as a tool to help them understand and manage their environmental impacts. However, there is a major limitation in most environmental accounts—the lack of appropriate limits.

Environmental performance targets are typically set based on incremental targets. These are often set based on feasibility, local policies, or industry best practice. They are arbitrary. Achieving industry best practice standards does not equate to maintaining or improving environmental assets. Incremental targets encourage incremental change.

In contrast, absolute limits that defined the end goal for our environmental assets and flows would help us to understand what is needed. Absolute limits can be used to create a vision of the future that is not constrained by the status quo.

The Planetary Boundaries are absolute environmental limits. What is missing is a mechanism to connect these limits to existing environmental accounting practices. A connection is suggested as part of Planetary Accounting. This connection could be used to create a design brief for the future—a platform for disruptive innovation and transformational change.

References

  1. Akenji L, Bengtsson M, Bleischwitz R, Tukker A, Schandl H (2016) Ossified materialism: introduction to the special volume on absolute reductions in materials throughput and emissions. J Clean Prod 132:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvidsson R, Kushnir D, Molander S, Sandén BA (2016) Energy and resource use assessment of graphene as a substitute for indium tin oxide in transparent electrodes. J Clean Prod 132:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahadur A, Tanner T (2014) Transformational resilience thinking: putting people, power and politics at the heart of urban climate resilience. Environ Urbaniz 26:200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann A (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions associated. Sustainable Development Masters, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellis M (2017) A history of electric vehicles. Available: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-electric-vehicles-1991603. Accessed 22 Apr 2018
  6. BIS (2012) Low carbon environmental goods and services. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Biswas A, Modak P (1999) Conducting environmental impact assessment for developing countries. United Nations University, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Cucek L, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 34:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Boo AJ, Bosch PR, Gorter CN, Keuning SJ (1993) An environmental module and the complete system of national accounts. In: Franz A, Stahmer C (eds) Approaches to environmental accounting. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S, Ourslet A, Reed A, Wackernagel M (2010a) Ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewing B, Reed A, Galli A, Kitzes J, Wackernagel M (2010b) Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang K (2015a) Footprint family: concept, classification, theoretical framework and integrated pattern. Shengtai Xuebao/Acta Ecologica Sinica 35:1647–1659Google Scholar
  13. Fang K (2015b) Footprint family: current practices, challenges and future prospects. Shengtai Xuebao/Acta Ecologica Sinica 35:7974–7986Google Scholar
  14. Fang K, Heijungs R, De Snoo GR (2014) Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: overview of a footprint family. Ecol Indic 36:508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fong WK, Sotos M, Doust M, Schultz S, Marques A, Deng-Beck C (2014) Global protocol for community-scale greenhouse gas emission inventories - an accounting and reporting standard for cities. Greenhouse gas protocol. World Resources Institute, C40 Cities, and Local Governments for Sustainability, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Galli A, Kitzes J, Wermer P, Wackernagel M, Niccolucci V, Tiezzi E (2007) An exploration of the mathematics behind the Ecological Footprint. Int J Ecodyn 2:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galli A, Wackernagel M, Iha K, Lazarus E (2014) Ecological footprint: implications for biodiversity. Biol Conserv 173:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gladwell M (2000) The tipping point. Little Brown, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Global Footprint Network (2011) National footprint accounts. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. Global Footprint Network (2014) Footprint calculator. Available: http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/. Accessed 9 Jun 2014
  22. Gray A (2017) Countries are announcing plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars. Is yours on the list?. World Economic Forum. Available: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/countries-are-announcing-plans-to-phase-out-petrol-and-diesel-cars-is-yours-on-the-list/. Accessed 22 Apr 2018
  23. Greenhalgh S, Broekhoff D, Daviet F, Ranganathan J, Acharya M, Corbier L, Oren K, Sundin H (2005) The GHG protocol for project accounting. Greenhouse gas protocol. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Guinée J (2012) Life cycle assessment: past, present and future. International Symposium on Life Cycle Assessment and Construction, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. Hertwich EG (2005) Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology perspective. J Indus Ecol 9:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (1997) ISO 14040:1997 Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalbar PP, Birkved M, Nygaard SE, Hauschild M (2017) Weighting and aggregation in life cycle assessment: do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision support? J Indus Ecol 21:1591–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirchain RE Jr, Gregory JR, Olivetti EA (2017) Environmental life-cycle assessment. Nat Mater 16:693–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kojima S, Aoki-Suzuki C (2015) Efficiency and fairness of resource use: from a planetary boundary perspective. In: The economics of green growth: new indicators for sustainable societies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  30. Laurent A, Owsianiak M (2017) Potentials and limitations of footprints for gauging environmental sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 25:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monfreda C, Wackernagel M, Deumling D (2004) Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy 21:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Musk E (2014) All our patent are belong to you. Tesla. Available: https://www.tesla.com/en_NZ/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you. Accessed 22 Apr 2018
  33. Newman P (2005) Can the magic of sustainability revive environmental professionalism? Greener Manag Int 49:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman P (2017) The rise and rise of renewable cities. Renew Energ Environ Sustain 2:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newman P, Kenworthy J (2006) Urban design to reduce automobile dependance. Opolis 2:35–52Google Scholar
  36. Newman P, Kenworthy J (2015) The end of automobile dependence: how cities are moving beyond car-based planning. Island Press, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman P, Beatley T, Boyer H (2017) Resilient cities: overcoming fossil fuel dependence. Island Press, Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OVERLAET (2011) Tesla_Roadster_2.5_(fron_quarter).jpg. WikimediaGoogle Scholar
  39. Oxford Dictionary (2018) Systemic. Oxforddictionaries.com. Available: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systemic. Accessed 22 Apr 2018
  40. Pelling M, O’Brien K, Matyas D (2015) Adaptation and transformation. Clim Change 133:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urbaniz 4:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saebo HV (1994) Natural resource accounting - the Norwegian approach. UNEP/ECE/UNSTAT Workshop on Environmental and Natural Resource Accounting, Modra-HarmoniaGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015) Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1684–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seijts GH, Gandz J (2018) Transformational change and leader character. Bus Horiz 61:239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SFOSKETT (2005) 1915_Detroit_Electric.jpg. WikimediaGoogle Scholar
  46. Termeer K, Dewulf A, Biesbroek R (2017) Transformational change. J Environ Plan Manag 60:558–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UN (1993) Handbook of national accounting: integrated environmental and economic accounting. United Nations, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  48. UN (2014) System of environmental-economic accounting 2012 - central framework. United Nations, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  49. UN Statistics Division (2018) SEEA revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Divisions. Available: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/
  50. Valada T (2010) Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental (un)sustainability? A review and further analysis. Instituto Superior Técnico, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Meyer
    • 1
  • Peter Newman
    • 2
  1. 1.The Planetary Accounting NetworkAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityWestern AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations