Toward
Sustainable
Development
Endnotes - Section 4 I. In its discussion of energy and sustainability, the Brundtland Commission identifies four “key elements” that require reconciliation. These elements are better seen as specific objectives that can be associated with the generic Domain II goals as follows: a) To maintain or increase human well-being: * by ensuring the growth of energy supplies to meet human needs; * by the maintenance of public health, recognizing the potential health risks inherent in energy sources;
in
the
Great
Lakes
Ba sin
183
4. Energy use per capita was chosen over energy use per passenger-kilometre because there is less opportunity for misinterpretation. Changes in passenger-kilometre can be influenced as much by changes in technical efficiency of the system as by changes in ridership (Marbek 1990, 7). There is an analogy here with changes in energy use per dollar of value added. Changes in this indicator can be generated by economic structural changes as much as by true improvements in the efficiency of energy use. Provided it is known that the macroeconomic structure has been held constant, changes to energy use per dollar of value added can be used as an indicator of changes in the efficiency of energy use. However, this is usually not the case. Both of these examples serve to highlight the limitations of using energy intensities.
b) To reduce stress on the environment: * by minimizing waste of primary resources through increased energy efficiency and conservation measures; * by ensuring overall protection of the biosphere and prevention of more localized forms of pollution (modified from WCED 1987,169). The Brundtland Commission does not deal with the complete range of physical, chemical, and biological stresses nor does it deal with restoration activities as an aspect of its energy discussion. 2. The Brundtland
Commission
points out:
Energy is not so much a single product as a mix ofproducts and services, a mix upon which the welfare of individuals, the sustainable development of nations, and the lifesupporting capabilities of the global ecosystem depend. In the past, this mix has been allowed tofrow together haphazardly, the proportions dictated by short-term pressures on and short-term goals of governments, institutions, and companies. Energy is too importantfor its development to continue in such a random manner. A safe, environmentally sound, and economically viable energypathway that willsustain human progress into the distantfuture is clearly imperative. (WCED 1987,202)
3. The use of scrap iron and steel instead of virgin material results in a 74 percent saving in energy; every tonne of glass recycled reduces the equivalent of 1,057 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions; use of secondary paper resources instead of virgin materials results in a 74 percent reduction in air pollution, a 35 percent reduction in water pollution, and a 58 percent reduction in water use; for every tonne of paper recycled, the equivalent of three barrels of oil are saved in energy use (Environment Canada 1994,4).
5. Marbek Resource Consultants suggest that a weighting scale be developed that captures the degree of imposed stress (and resulting degradation) and the sensitivity of the land where the stress is being imposed (1990,9). 6. The 50-year time horizon is an arbitrary choice. Analysis may reveal that another figure is more appropriate. This is a topic for follow-up research. 7. This indicator is primitive. As restorative actions become more prominent, no doubt others will emerge to replace this one. At this stage the recognition that each facility has some responsibility for ecosystem restoration is what is most important. 8. Energy export is a delicate public policy issue. Presumably it is undertaken to generate financial benefits for Canadians. On this basis, and assuming Canadian ownership of resources (which is not always the case), the higher the“value” of energy exports, the higher the financial benefits that can accrue to Canadians. As in other assessments of activities, though, the assessment of value must be balanced against true full costs to Canada, including those carried by people and the ecosystem. In addition, full-cost analysis of energy exports should include assessment of human and ecosystem implications to the recipient jurisdiction.