Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present ... · Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity Marina Fischer-Kowalski

Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity

Marina Fischer-Kowalski

Institute of Social EcologyIFF Vienna, Klagenfurt University, Austria

Presentation to the Third ALTER-Net Summerschool, Peyresq, Alpes de Haute-Provence, September 2008

Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 2

Outline

1. Conceptual clarifications: social metabolism and metabolicprofiles, sociometabolic regimes, transitions

2. key features of the historical transition from the agrarian to the industrial regime

3. patterns of ongoing transformations in the South, in relationto the historical Northern transition, and in the context of global interdepency

4. How does all this relate to biodiversity, and to understanding trajectories of change?


Social metabolism – metabolic profile

• Organismic analogy: any social system, like an organism, requires a steady flow of energy and matter to reproduce itself

• How much, and what kind of energy and matter it requires, is deeplybuilt into the structures and functioning of the social system, and beyondcertain points hard to change (metabolic profile).

• The toolbox and indicators of material & energy flow analysis (MEFA) match, in units of tonnes and joules, the toolbox of macroeconomicaccounting, in monetary units.

• The social system‘s material and energy requirements, both on the inputside (resource extraction) and on the output side (wastes and emissions) constitute pressures upon the environment, and inducechanges.

• Social metabolism: hinge concept/methodology between socioeconomicsystems and ecological systems


Model of material social metabolism(according to MEFA)

Stocks

Domestic Environment

EconomicProcessing

DE DPO

Air,Water

WaterVapour

Imports Exports

Immigrants Emigrants

DMI

DE=domesticextraction

DMI=domesticmaterial input

DPO=domesticprocessed output

DMC= domesticmaterial consumption =DMI -exports


composition of materials input (DMC)

material input EU15 (tonnes, in %)

Biomass

construction minerals

industr.minerals

fossil fuels

total: 17 tonnes/cap*y

source: EUROSTAT 2003


Composition of DPO: Wastes and emissions(outflows)

D PO t o air ( C O2 )

D PO t o air*

D PO t o land ( wast e)

D PO t o land ( d issipat ive use)

D PO t o wat er

Source: WRI et al., 2000; own calculations

unweighted means of DPO per capita forA, G, J, NL, US; metric tons

DPO total: 16 tons per capita


Sociometabolic regimes

The theory of sociometabolic regimes (Sieferle) claims that, in world history, certain modes of human production(Ricardo, Marx) and subsistence (Adam Smith, Diamond) can be broadly distinguished that share, at whatever point in time and irrespective of biogeographical conditions, certain fundamental systemic characteristics, derived fromthe way they utilize and thereby modify nature.

Key constraint: energy system (sources of energy and maintechnologies of energy conversion).

Result: characteristic metabolic profile (range of materialsand energy use per capita)


Sociometabolic regimes can becharacterized by ...

1. a metabolic profile, that is a certain structure and level of energy and materials use (range per capita of human population)

2. secured by certain infrastructures and a range of technologies, as well as

3. certain economic and governance structures.4. A certain pattern of demographic reproduction, human life time and

labor structure, and5. a certain pattern of environmental impact: land-use, resource

exploitation, pollution and impact on the biological evolution6. Key regulatory positive and negative feedbacks between the socio-

economic system and its natural environment that mould and constrainthe reproduction of the socioecological regime.


Transitions between sociometabolicregimes – research strategy

?

transition

Hunters and gatherers

Agrarian Industrial

Socio-metabolic regimes

Sustainable ? Postindustrial? Knowledgesociety?

Source: Sieferle et al. 2006, modified


Transitions

Within regimes gradualism and path dependencyprevail: the system moves along a path, „maturing“into a certain direction, often towards a „high level equilibrium trap“ (Boserup 1965, Sieferle 2003), until:– that path is either interrupted from outside (such as: Mongol

invasion, major volcano eruption), or– the system implodes / collapses, and possibly falls back to

an earlier stage of that same path (Diamond 2005) – or particular (contingent) conditions allow for a transition into

another sociometabolic regimeTransitions between regimes can be turbulent and

chaotic; they are usually irreversible; there is no predetermined outcome or directionality.


Part 2:The transition from the agrarian to the industrial

socioecological regime in history (1600-2000)


the energy transition 1700-2000: from biomass to fossil fuels

Share of energy

sources in primaryenergy

consumption(DEC)

United Kingdom

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Biomass

Coal

OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Source: Social Ecology Data Base

biomasscoal

Oil / gas / nuc


the energy transition 1700-2000 - latecomers

Share of energysources in primary

energyconsumption

(DEC)

United Kingdom

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Biomass

Coal

OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Austria

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Biomass

Coal

OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Japan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Biomass

Coal

OIL/Gas/Nuclear

Source: Social Ecology Data Base

Japan

AustriaUK


Increasing population (density) 1600-2000

Population density (UK incl. Ireland) (cap/km2)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

35016

00

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

UK & Ireland

Japan

Austria

Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB


Reduction of agricultural population, and gain in income 1600-2000

Share of agricultural population

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

GDP per capita [1990US$]

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000



Longterm increase in economic energyeffciency (1900-2005)

Energy Efficiency ($ GDP / GJ primary energy)

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

14019

00

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

[$/G

J]

Austria

United Kingdom

Japan

Efficiencyincreases:Average 11 % per decade, orroughly 1% annually.

Source: SocialEcology DB


Increasing economic material efficiency (whilemetabolic profile fairly constant)

EU-15

0,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,4

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

DMCPopulationGDPResource Productivity (GDP/DMC)

SocialEcology DB

On average 20 -23% increase in economicmaterial effciency per decade


Metabolic profiles of the agrarian and industrial regime:

transition = explosion

Agrarian Industrial Factor Energy use (DEC) per capita [GJ/cap] 40-70 150-400 3-5 Material use (DMC) per capita [t/cap] 3-6 15-25 3-5 Population density [cap/km²] <40 < 400 3-10 Agricultural population [%] >80% <10% 0.1 Energy use (DEC) per area [GJ/ha] <30 < 600 10-30 Material use (DMC) per area [t/ha] <2 < 50 10-30 Biomass (share of DEC) [%] >95 10-30 0.1-0.3

Source: Social Ecology DB


0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

SangSa

eng,

Thailan

d 1998

Trinket,

Nico

bars 2

000

Törbel, S

witzerl

and 1

875

Austria

1830

UK 1884*

Austria

1991

German

y 1991

Japan

1991

Netherl

ands

1991

USA 1991

Swede

n 1991

UK 1991

t/cap

ita

Biomass Minerals Fossils Products

Metabolic profiles by sociometabolicregimes (DMC/capita)

Agrarian Societies Industrial SocietiesMeans

* UK 1884: DMI data


Historical sociometabolic regimes

Agrarian regime:1. Solar energy, resource base flow

of biomass. 2. infrastructures decentralized. key

technology: use of land through agriculture;

3. subsistence economies & market; if more complex, strong hierarchical differentiation;

4. tendency of population growth and increasing workload;

5. potentially sustainable, but soil erosion, wildlife / habitat reduction;

6. distinct limits for physical growth (low energy density);

Industrial regime:1. Fossil fuel based; exploitation of

large stocks; 2. centralized infrastructures, industrial

technologies; 3. capitalism and functional

differentiation; 4. thrifty reproduction, prolonged

socialization, somewhat lesser workload;

5. large-scale pollution (air, water and soil), alteration of atmospheric composition, depletion of mineral resources, biodiversity reduction;

6. abolishment of limits to physical growth; decoupling of land and energy and labour;


Part 3: Ongoing transitions

• Is „development“ such a transition from an agrarian to an industrial regime? – does it follow the same historical trajectory? – Does it lead to similar outcomes, that is for example a factor 3-4

increase in material and energy use?– What are the relevant framework conditions influencing these

transitions? How do they differ from history?

• Is a contemporary industrial metabolic profile possible for all and everywhere?– What are indications of local / regional constraints?– What are the global constraints?– What are the ways out?


Country classification (N=165 countries forthe year 2000)

Development status: according to UN classification; differentiation between industrialized countries (incl. Transition Markets) and developing countries (all others; wide range from least developed to newly industrialized countries)Population Density: low and high density countries (50 persons/km² as dividing line)Length of history of agrarian colonization: “Old World” countries versus “New World” countries


Country classification (165 countries worldwide, by the year 2000)

Developing low density –old world: Arid countries in Asia and Africa (N = 41)

Industrial low density – old world: Former Soviet Union, Scandinavian countries.(N = 15)

Population density low(<50/km2)OLD WORLD

Developing low density –new world: South America. (N = 22)

Industrial low density -new world: North America, Australia, New Zealand.(N= 4)

Population density low(<50/km2)NEW WORLD

Developing high densityMost of S-E Asia incl. India, China, Central America, some African countries.(N= 65)

Industrial high density European countries, Japan, South Korea (N=30)

Population density high(>50/km2)

DevelopingIndustrial

I - Hd

I – Ld - nw

I – Hd - ow

D - Hd

D – Ld - nw

D – Hd - ow


Unequal distribution of global resources (for the year 2000)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

S hare o f popu la tion S ha re o f te rrito ry S ha re o f G D P

D - Ld - owD - Ld - nwD - H dI - Ld - owI - Ld - nwI - H d


Transition tracks:Population and Economy (2000)

Population density

[cap/km2]

Agricultural population

[%]

GDP [US$

PPP/cap] I - Hd 149 9% 18,364 I – Ld - nw 12 2% 30,540 I – Ld - ow 12 14% 6,333 D - Hd 140 56% 2,866 D – Ld - nw 19 19% 6,312 D – Ld - ow 17 52% 2.802 World 45 42% 6,665 China 134 67% 3,491 Australia 2 5% 24,090



Metabolic profiles in 2000:Material and Energy use per capita


Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries

Material use (DMC)

per capita[t/cap ]

Energy use(DEC) per

capita[GJ/cap ]

Electricityuse per

capits[GJ/cap ]

I - Hd 15 190 22I – Ld - nw 29 443 52I – Ld - ow 14 192 20D - Hd 6 49 3D – Ld - nw 15 131 7D – Ld - ow 6 76 4World 10 102 9China 8 75 4Australia 42 470 40


Metabolic profiles in 2000:Material and Energy use per capita

M a te ria l

us e (D M C ) pe r ca p ita

[t/cap ]

E ne rg y us e (D E C ) pe r

ca pi ta [G J /cap ]

E le ct ric ity us e pe r

ca pi ts [G J /cap ]

I - H d 1 5 1 9 0 2 2 I – Ld - n w 2 9 4 4 3 5 2 I – Ld - o w 1 4 1 9 2 2 0 D - H d 6 4 9 3 D – Ld - nw 1 5 1 3 1 7 D – Ld - o w 6 7 6 4 W o r ld 1 0 1 0 2 9 C h ina 8 7 5 4 A ust ra lia 4 2 4 7 0 4 0


Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries


Environmental pressures 2000


Conclusion: Regional environmental pressure already high in high density developing countries

E n e r g y us e (D E C ) pe r

h a [G J / ha ]

M a te r ia l u se (D M C ) pe r

h a [ t/ ha ]

H A N P P a p p r o p r ia te

d p la n t e n e r g y

[% ] I - H d 2 8 4 2 3 4 2 % I – L d - n w 5 4 4 1 9 % I – L d - o w 2 4 2 1 5 % D - H d 6 9 9 4 0 % D – L d - nw 2 5 3 1 4 % D – L d - o w 1 3 1 1 5 % W o r ld 4 6 4 2 2 % C h ina 7 3 1 0 3 8 % A us t ra lia 1 2 1 1 1 %


Developing countries:

Achieve the same p/c energy consumption as industrial countries of same density class

Convergence scenario: World energyconsumption (DEC) by the year 2050

-

600

1.200

1.800

DEC 2000 DEC 2050

[EJ]

High denisty developingLow density Africa/AsiaLow density New worldFormer Soviet UnionOld world industrial coreNew world industrial core

Industrial countries:p/c energy consumption

of 2000 – 30%(high density: 135 Gj/cap,low density: 310 Gj/cap)

Scenario assumptionsfor the year 2050


Additional factor explaining variation withinregimes: population density

• High population density is associated with lower resourceuse (about factor 2), but the relationship remains complex. – If there are few resources, such as very arid land or cold climate,

there is a limit to the number of people that can be sustained underagrarian conditions (>low density + low resource consumption)

– If a few people come to a rich environment, such as to a newlyconquered continent, they will generously consume (>low density + high resource consumption).

– If many people populate a rich environment, resources will becomescarce, but each person will need less for a good standard of livingbecause of economies of scale (>high density + low resourceconsumption)


Part 4:

How does all that relate to biodiversity???

(some loose ideas, based in part on RP Sieferle(2003), and Social Ecology team work)


Principal mechanisms

• Impacts of social metabolism:– Outcompeting other species of (certain) general life sustaining

resources, such as land, water and plant biomass– Pollution of environmental media by wastes and emissions– Creation of new opportunities and niches

• Impacts of human colonization strategies:– Interventions into ecosystems (biotopes)– Interventions into organisms / populations– Interventions into evolution

> Both depend on sociometabolic regime!


Colonization of natural systems

SocialsystemNatural

system

Colonizedsystem

Work / energyinvested

Resources / servicesgained

Change inducedthrough colonization


Colonization intensity of terrestrialecosystems: HANPP

Society

Harvest of biomass forfood, energy, fibre, etc.

Agricultural work, fuel fortractors, energy for fertilizer, etc.

NPP0

NPPt

HANPP


Definition of HANPP

Rationale: HANPP measures changes in the availability of trophic energy for wild-living heterotrophic organisms in ecosystems induced by human activities

Some papers on HANPP:

Vitousek et al. 1986. BioScience 36, 363-373.

Wright 1990. Ambio 19, 189-194.

Haberl 1997. Ambio26(3), 143-146.

Haberl et al. 2001. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15, 929-942.

Imhoff et al. 2004. Nature 429, 870-873.

NPP of the potential

natural vegetation= NPP0

NPP =remaining inecosystemsafter harvest

t

Net

prim

ary

prod

uctio

n (N

PP)

[tC

/yr]

NPP of theactually prevailing

vegetation= NPPact

HANPP

NPP : NPP changes induced by soil degradation, sealing,and ecosystem changes

LUCC

NPP =harvested byhumans

h

HANPP = NPP +NPPHANPP = NPP - NPP

LUCC h

0 t


The species-energy hypothesis• Basic claim: The number of

species is positively related to the flow of energy in an ecosystem.

• Corollary: If humans reduceenergy flow (e.g., throughHANPP), then species richnesswill decline.

• Notes– Can explain species diversity

gradient from equator to poles. – Not undisputed. Competing

(complementary) hypothesesexist (e.g., intermediatedisturbance hypothesis).

HANPP

Brown, J.H. (1981) Am. Zool. 21, 877-888.Gaston, K.L. (2000) Nature 405, 220-227.Hutchinson, G.E. (1959) Am. Nat. 93, 145-159.Rapson, G.L. et al. (1997) J. Ecol. 85, 99-100.Waide, R.B. et al. (1999) Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30,257-300.Wright, D.H. (1983) Oikos 41, 495-506.Wright, D.H. (1990) Ambio 19, 189-194.


Empirical studies support the HANPP / biodiversity hypothesis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 202010-2

4x10-2

Y = -1.975 +0.485 X R² =0 .549, p < 0.0001

i)

all h

eter

otro

phs

NPPt

0.1 1 10

1

10

100

Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X2

Adj. R2 = 0.69bree

ding

bird

spe

cies

rich

ness

NPPt [MJ/m²*a]

Case study 1: Correlation between NPPtand autotroph species richness (5 taxa) on 38 plots sized 600x600 m, East Austria

Haberl et al., 2004, Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 102, p213ff

Case study 2: Correlation between NPPt and breeding bird richness in Austria, 328 randomly chosen 1x1 km squares.

Haberl et al., 2005. Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 110, p119ff


Hunters & gatherers

• Metabolism: – Risk of regional eradication of prey species (particularly large

herbivores). Particularly high in „pioneer situations“ (newimmigration). [example: eradication of North and middle American megafauna?] Cultural regulation through hunting, area and foodtaboos, leisure culture, control of population growth (Sahlins)

– barely pollution, no particular niches

• Colonization:– Mainly self-colonization (sex and reproduction regulation, body

tattooos …)– Sometimes: use of fire in hunting [example: modification of

Australian flora & fauna by aborigines]


Agrarian societies• Metabolism:

– Metabolism (almost) completely based on local biomass; monopolization of terrestrial ecosystems for human and livestock nutrition (gradual eradicationof forest – „clear the land“. But dependence on functionally diverse land cover). Eradication of competitors (large carnivores).

– More or less closed cycles, barely pollution– Great time for parasites: dense homogenous man, animal and plant

populations create new niches for plants, animals and microorganisms(McNeill, Cohen, Crosby)

• Colonization:– Colonization of terrestrial ecosystems: modification of plant and soil species.

Increase of erosion. [cult. measures for erosion control]– Breeding and importing of functional species. Risk of bioinvasions.– Self-colonization for production of labor power (many children), diligence and

thriftiness. Move themselves into lock-in of high population density, high yields per area, low labor effciency. (Boserup, Netting)


Industrial society

• Metabolism: – Energy base = fossil fuels, no competitors (relief on land and

biomass). Nutritional base: much more animal protein, increase in livestock. Energy surplus allows mobilisation and transport of hugeamounts of materials, restructuring of earth surface and waterbodies.

– Large scale pollution; local impacts can be controlled, global impacts(CO2) not (yet?)

– Niches: diversity of plant and animal pets, protected areas. Lessaggressive attitude towards „useless“ plant and animal life.

• Colonization:– New strategies to invervene in organisms and evolution (medicine

and bio-technologies)


Results: HDI vs. Energy

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008

20052000

19951990

19851980

1975

HDI

Energy

R2 = 0,85 – 0,90


Results: HDI vs. Carbon

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008

20001995

19901985

19801975

R2 = 0,75 – 0,85

Carbon

HDI

2005


How does the energy threshold compare to global energy per capita?


And how does the carbon threshold compare to carbon emissions per capita?


Global energy use


Global carbon emissions


Global Sustainability – a Nobel CausePotsdam Memorandum 10.10.2007

„Is there a ‚third way‘ between environmental destabilizationand persistent underdevelopment?

Yes, there is, but this way has to bring about, rapidly and ubiquitously, a thorough re-invention of our industrialmetabolism – the Great Transformation.“

Documents

Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present ... · Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity Marina Fischer-Kowalski