Ecological modernization

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ecological modernization is an analytical and strategic approach to environmental action in the state, economy and society. Ecological modernization aims at a sustainable co-evolution of humans and nature, which includes an active use of the environment and thus also environmental design by humans.

Origin and core elements of the approach

The term “ecological modernization” was first used by Martin Jänicke in 1982 in a speech in the Berlin House of Representatives. In the period that followed, an interdisciplinary political, economic and social science approach developed from this in publications by authors of the so-called "Berlin School" ( Volkmar J. Hartje , Joseph Huber , Udo-Ernst Simonis , Volker von Prittwitz , Klaus W. Zimmermann ) . In the 1990s, the concept received a social science foundation based on development, modernization and innovation theory. At the same time, other authors contributed to the matter, including Arthur H. Rosenfeld , Amory Lovins , Donald Huisingh, René Kemp, Hans Christoph Binswanger and Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker . In Europe and beyond, the approach was particularly supported by contributions from Maarten Hajer, Lennart J. Lundqvist, Arthur Mol, David Sonnenfeld, Gerd Spaargaren , Albert Weale and others. a. spread. In the 2000s, the approach generally found its way into international specialist literature, especially in Japan and China (cf. Mol / Sonnenfeld / Spaagaren 2009). In politics, ecological modernization is one of the most important models today. With different priorities in detail, the key ecological role of technological development and its economic, political-institutional and cultural conditions and control options are always at stake.

The approach emerged in overcoming the earlier debate on the limits to growth , in which "green" growth critics and old industrial growth defenders blocked each other. Solutions arose from ideas of organic growth (life cycle theories) and qualitative growth . In addition, there was the thought that industrial development not only brings with it social and ecological problems typical for each stage of development, but also opens up means and opportunities to successfully deal with these problems in the course of further development. Social evolution is path-dependent. You can neither reverse nor stop the history of modernization and industrialization, nor get out of it, but you can use the remaining degrees of freedom in the course of the path for ecological readjustments, with the help of the means of modern society, in particular science and technology as well as law and money, on the basis Renewed cultural and political content, especially environmental awareness , environmental ethics , environmental policy and environmentally-oriented behavior.

A core idea of ​​ecological modernization is the upgrading of resource - and sink - productivity , that is, the ever more efficient and environmentally friendly use of raw materials, energy sources and environmental media (soil, water, air). Behind this was the environmental and economic insight that ecology and economy need not be opposites. If the economy also applies the principles of good housekeeping to ecological aspects, in other words, if it includes ecological aspects in its production functions and calculations instead of ignoring them (internalizing instead of externalizing), then greening does not mean hindering further growth and progress, but becomes the basis for it . Accordingly, ecological modernization is in the enlightened self-interest of Homo oeconomicus . The increase in environmental productivity will be just as much a source of profit as labor and capital productivity have been. This also resulted in a seamless transition to the development of corporate environmental management systems.

Technologically, the approach of ecological modernization postulated a priority for integrated environmental protection over downstream measures. Downstream measures (also referred to as end-of-pipe , downstream, additive) are, for example, exhaust air purification, wastewater treatment or waste incineration. In contrast, integrated solutions were measures of recycling and generally increasing efficiency, in particular material and energy efficiency, as well as, above all, product and process innovations .

In the course of the 1980s – 90s a number of technological approaches were developed, each of which contributes in its own way to the ecological modernization of value chains: recycling, circular economy, industrial composite use of by-products and waste (industrial symbiosis); sustainable resource management; clean technologies (e.g. water, wind, solar energy or hydrogen instead of fossil fuels); Substitution of pollutants (e.g. solvents or heavy metals); resource-saving and environmentally friendly product design; Bionics (developing products based on nature's example); advanced downstream technologies.

There is traditionally a tension between nature conservation and technical environmental protection. Ecological modernization is not a conservative nature conservation program that aims to maintain or bring about a certain state of nature. Nature knows no ideal archetype that could serve as an absolute reference state. There is only evolution that continues successfully or does not. Ecological modernization aims at a sustainable co-evolution of humans and nature, which includes an active use of the environment and thus also environmental design by humans.

Narrower and wider understandings

One can distinguish a narrower, middle and comprehensive understanding of ecological modernization. All three are valid and compatible with each other.

The narrower term of ecological modernization is at the same time an engineering one and means bringing existing product lines, industrial plants and infrastructures up to date with the latest state of knowledge and technology, or even introducing new technologies that have better environmental performance than the previous level of knowledge and technology Technology.

In a medium- range understanding , ecological modernization also includes legal and financial aspects, i.e. an amendment of legal regulations and a modernization of institutions and professions as well as real and financial conditions. The institutions and instruments of state environmental policy are seen here, together with financing and market mechanisms, as control levers, through which the greening of agriculture, energy and raw material production, goods manufacturing, services and consumer behavior can be brought about.

Ecological modernization in a comprehensive sense also relates to more far-reaching theoretical contexts in the social sciences and humanities. This includes cultural aspects such as the environmentally-oriented change in the value base and worldview, attitudes, the lifestyle dependent on the level of development and milieu-specific lifestyles, as well as processes of environmental communication and the formation of political opinions and will. Here social movements have played a key role over and over again, most recently the new social movements , especially the environmental movement .

Relevant theoretical contexts include the following:

  • the historical-institutional modernization theory, in particular the cultural sociology according to Max Weber , in which rationalization functions as a general development paradigm of modern society in all its sub-areas, or the theory of modern nation-state formation according to Rokkan, or the theory of plural modernization processes according to Eisenstadt. This also includes the theory of further modernization according to Zapf and Tyriakian. The concept of reflexive modernization according to Beck and Giddens can also be applied here, provided that this i. S. a critical self-referential continuation, not interpreted as the end of the history of progress.
  • the materialistic modernization theory according to Karl Marx, which focuses on the development of the productive forces and the production relations connected with them, in connection with it also the world system theory according to Wallerstein.
  • the economic modernization and innovation theory based on Kondratieff and Schumpeter .

Although the narrower and broader terms of ecological modernization do not exclude each other, certain barriers to understanding occasionally appear here. For example, natural scientists and engineers typically fail to recognize the complexity of social causalities that ultimately lead to environmental effects or to a change in environmental behavior. Conversely, social scientists and humanities scientists often lack knowledge and understanding of the key ecological function of technology and industrial value chains.

According to authors of ecological modernization, environmental problems are disturbances in the geo- and biosphere metabolism between humans and nature. The metabolism is effectively brought about by material activity of the human being, by material production and consumption, by work which in modern society is highly technologically transformed and potentiated work. The central position of technology in the approach to ecological modernization does not arise from a technocratic or technomaniac attitude, but from the fact of the matter itself.

Related concepts

Social metabolism

In the 1990s, the model of industrial metabolism according to Robert U. Ayres and social metabolism according to Marina Fischer-Kowalski became an important analytical basis for processes of ecological modernization . Thus, again, the research directions of the connecting LCAs ( life cycle assessment ) and the material and energy flow analysis.

This strand of research can also be traced back to Karl Marx , who in turn tied in with William Petty : The earth is the mother, work the father of social production, inextricably linked in the necessity of the metabolism between man and nature. The social anthropology of Cultural Ecology and Cultural Materialism according to Marvin Harris have recently been linked to this: The level of development of cultures is determined by the level of development of their productive forces (technologies, forms of communication and organization). This applies to primitive as well as traditional and modern societies. Those with the higher productivity are the superior ones who survive in the long run possibly existing competitor populations because their productive forces allow a better use of resources and sinks, which increases the ecological carrying capacity of their habitat. Cultures that undermine the ecological carrying capacity of their environment are perishing.

Sustainable development and environmental innovations

After forerunners in the field of forest science of the 18th century, the concept of sustainable development from 1987 ( Brundtland Report ) and with the resolutions of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ("Rio Environment Summit") became a global model for a global, environmentally and socially acceptable development. Sustainable development is normatively defined on the basis of a “magic target triangle”: further industrial development should be achieved together with its environmental and social compatibility, and indeed in the long term, so that future generations should not be worse off than those living now.

If one compares the approaches of sustainable development and ecological modernization with one another, a certain overlap becomes apparent. To that extent, there are two intertwined strands of discourse. Through individual European members of the Brundtland Commission preparing for Rio , key aspects of ecological modernization have been incorporated into the concept of sustainable development. The direction of ecological economics also had a strong influence . You could say that ecological modernization is a strategy, probably the main strategy, to achieve the ecological goals of sustainable development.

Since Rio there has been a discussion about whether ecological sustainability can be achieved through sufficiency or efficiency . Sufficiency here means a strategy of frugality, voluntary renunciation of consumption or the legally prescribed quota of resource consumption and environmental pollution. Such a perspective was adopted primarily by non-governmental organizations . In contrast, the strategy of increasing technological efficiency was the point of contact for the industrial and financial world.

However, both approaches are opposed to the fact that they fall short in certain respects. The ideals of a frugal way of life (sufficiency) do find a certain rhetorical approval among educated citizens. However, culturally and politically, they are not compatible with the vast majority of the population, especially not in emerging and developing countries. In addition, a merely quantitative reduction in environmental pollution does mean a temporary shift in the given limits of growth, but not a structural upgrade of the ecological carrying capacity.

This also applies in the same way to a strategy of increasing efficiency, which aims to reduce the input of resources and sinks. In addition, increased efficiency can mean progress on the wrong object. If, for example, combustion techniques using fossil fuels are ecologically unsustainable in the long run, it only makes limited sense to burn more efficiently (example 3-liter car). Rather, it is a matter of introducing new drive systems for vehicles (for example, electric motors that are fed by fuel cells or clean electricity from the socket).

Above all, the advocates of an efficiency strategy misunderstood the actual function of increasing efficiency in the course of running through learning curves : Increasing efficiency is a development mechanism in the life cycle of systems to stabilize and continue their growth until they reach a state of preservation depending on the life cycle path. This results in a rebound effect , i.e. a reduced input requirement is not converted into less output, but more output is generated from the same amount of input (e.g. cars with larger engines that drive more kilometers, i.e. expand the radius of action and in more Traffic result).

It was therefore necessary in the sustainability discourse to emphasize a strategy of fundamental innovations much more explicitly than before, so-called structural or systemic innovations, according to Schumpeter also basic innovation ( technology ) or English. called radical innovation . These are less aimed at further developing old systems incrementally ( incremental procedure model ), but primarily to replace old systems with new, more ecologically adapted systems. Such an innovation strategy has a priority right from the start in the approach of ecological modernization. Thus, the strategy of simply increasing efficiency in the mid-1990s was supplemented by the strategy of improving ecological consistency , also referred to as metabolic consistency . Eco-effectiveness , through technological environmental innovations that change the quality of industrial metabolism in such a way that it can be sustainably created even in large volumes (Huber 2004, Braungart / McDonough 2002).

This impulse has flowed into the new research and discourse strand of environmental innovations in recent years. Seen in this way, the ecological modernization discourse is continued today primarily as an environmental innovation discourse (Klemmer / Lehr / Löbbe 1999, Weber / Hemmelskamp 2005, Olsthoorn / Wieczorek 2006).

Industrial ecology

The direction of industrial ecology emerged in the USA in the early 1990s (cf. Socolow 1994). Here, too, we are dealing with an analytical research approach as well as a strategic design approach, with the aim of putting the relationship between nature and society on a sustainable basis by means of technological-industrial innovations and reorganizations. Therefore, industrial ecology is about something the same as ecological modernization. In fact, they are two different names rather than two different paradigms. Nevertheless, characteristic differences can be made out:

The approach of ecological modernization developed in Europe based on the German-speaking area and the Netherlands. The direction of industrial ecology is native to the USA. The second difference is that in America it was mainly engineers and economists who came together for this research direction, while in Europe political scientists, sociologists, historians, philosophers, educators and psychologists also played a not inconsiderable role. This results in a third difference with regard to a narrower or broader understanding of the subject. American industrial ecology is characterized by a narrower economic and engineering understanding of its subject. To this day, the main focus of the relevant research and publications has been on topics such as recycling / circular economy / composite production as well as life cycle assessments ( product life cycle ) and an ecological consideration of value chains (chain management). In European research and discussion on ecological modernization and environmental innovations, these things are equally important, but furthermore political-institutional, social and cultural aspects continue to receive a lot of attention.

literature

  • Robert U. Ayres , Udo E. Simonis : Industrial Metabolism. Restructuring for Sustainable Development. Tokyo: UN University Press, 1994.
  • Michael Braungart, William McDonough: Cradle to Cradle. Remaking the Way we make Things, New York: North Point Press, 2002.
  • Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Helmut Haberl: Societal metabolism and the colonization of nature. Amsterdam: Overseas Publ., 1997.
  • Joseph Huber: New Technologies and Environmental Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004.
  • Joseph Huber: General environmental sociology. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001.
  • Martin Jänicke, Klaus Jacob (Eds.): Environmental Governance in Global Perspective. New Approaches to Ecological and Political Modernization. Free University of Berlin, Research Center for Environmental Policy, 2006.
  • Paul Klemmer, Ulrike Lehr, Klaus Löbbe: Environmental innovations. Incentives and Barriers. Berlin: Analytica, 1999.
  • Arthur Mol, David Sonnenfeld, Gert Spaargaren (Eds.): The Ecological Modernization Reader. Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice. London / New York: Routledge, 2009.
  • Arthur Mol, David Sonnenfeld (Ed.): Ecological Modernization Around the World. London: Frank Cass, 2000.
  • Xander Olsthoorn, Anna Wieczorek (Eds.): Understanding Industrial Transformation. Views from Different Disciplines, Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.
  • Robert Socolow et al. (Ed.): Industrial Ecology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  • Volker von Prittwitz (ed.): Environmental policy as a modernization process. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1993.
  • Matthias Weber, Jens Hemmelskamp (Ed.): Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
  • Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Amory and Hunter Lovins: Factor Four. Twice the prosperity, halve the consumption of nature. Munich: Droemer Knaur, 1995.
  • Ulrich Brand: Sustainable development and ecological modernization. The limits to a hegemonic policy knowledge In: Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 23 (2), 2010, pp. 135-152.

Individual evidence

  1. Further uses in the "alternative government declaration" of the journal NATUR (4/1983) and in a discussion paper by the Berlin Science Center (Martin Jänicke: Environmental Prevention as Ecological Modernization and Structural Policy, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin 1984, IIUG dp 84-1). In 1998 and 2002 the term found its way into the coalition agreements of the Schröder / Fischer government.