Lifestyles, Energy, and Sustainability: The Exploration of Constraints

  • Igor Matutinovic
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Long term solution to sustainable energy consumption lies in the radical change of consumption patterns characteristic of industrialized economies. Required change may be out of reach under the conditions of global capitalism and huge income inequality among world economies.


Energy globalization institutions life-style sustainability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Daly, H.E., 1999. Globalization versus internationalization - some implications. Ecological Economics, 31, 31-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diamond, J., 2004. The wealth of nations. Nature, 429, 616-617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. GfK, 2005. Survey: GfK Roper Green Gauge 2005. GfK Roper Consulting, GfK Custom Research, New York.Google Scholar
  4. GfK, 2007. Survey: the Impact of Climate Change on Consumption. GfK-Nürnberg e.V., Nürnberg.Google Scholar
  5. IEA, 2006. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050.
  6. Liu, J. and Diamond, J., 2005. China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature, 435, 1179-1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Matutinović, I., 2005. The microeconomic foundations of business cycles: from institutions to autocatalytic networks. Journal of Economic Issues, 39, 4, 867-898.Google Scholar
  8. Matutinović, I., 2006. Self-organization and design in market economies. Journal of Economic Issues, XL, 3, 575-601.Google Scholar
  9. Matutinović, I., 2007a. An institutional approach to sustainability: historical interplay of worldviews, institutions and technology. Accepted April, 27 1997; to appear in Journal of Economic Issues, 41, 4, 1109-1137.Google Scholar
  10. Matutinović, I., 2007b. Worldviews, institutions and sustainability: an introduction to a coevolutionary perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14, 1, 92-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mooney, H., Cropper, A., and Reid, W., 2005. Confronting the human dilemma: how can ecosystems provide sustainable services to benefit society? Nature, 434, 561-562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nature, 2006. Energy shame. Nature, 443, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Robinson, J. and Tinker, J., 1997. Reconciling ecological, economic, and social imperatives: a new conceptual framework. In T. Schrecker (ed.) Surviving Globalism: Social and Environmental Dimensions. St. Martin’s Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Folke, C., and Walker, B., 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591-596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. SIPRI, 2007. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook2007. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Press Release11 June 2007,
  16. Ulanowicz, R.E., 1997. Ecology, the Ascendant Perspective. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 41-55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Matutinovic
    • 1
  1. 1.GfK – Center for market researchCroatia

Personalised recommendations