With this year’s annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP29) summit set to take place in a little over a month in Azerbaijan, the world’s attention once again turns to climate change, resource security and the goals of sustainable development.
The aims of sustainable development are to build a system that meets the needs of society without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil their own. The UN adopted 17 sustainable development goals in 2015 and real progress has been made in advancing some of them. But can true sustainable development be achieved, and how might it work in practice?
I am an engineer with experience in mining and geotechnics. To help answer these questions, I have been researching the interplay between sustainability challenges in the natural resource sector, the evolving concept of the circular economy and the implications of economic models founded upon sustained growth.
Striking a balance between resource extraction and environmental sustainability is essential for the continued existence of human societies and the risks of biodiversity loss must be accounted for in all resource extraction activities. At the same time, the need to protect the rights of all people — including Indigenous rights — remains paramount.
To help better understand the nuances of sustainable development, in my forthcoming research I propose a model of the impact(s) of human activities on the Earth’s planetary boundaries, which I refer to as the (un)sustainable machine.
Sustainable mining requires looking at the practices required to ensure long-term economic development remains in equilibrium with environmental and social considerations. The (un)sustainable machine model describes the delicate balancing acts at play, highlighting the intricate relationship between what drives minerals demand and consumption and how these forces impact Earth’s planetary boundary.
(Un)sustainable development
While progress may be being made in some areas of sustainable development — particularly around areas of poverty and malnutrition — as a planetary system, the report is much less positive. Take, for example, the issue of recycling.
Can recycling keep up with increased demand and counter resource extraction? Over 3.3 billion tonnes of metals are produced globally each year, and most demand predictions show rising consumption of metals in the coming decades.
Models developed by the World Bank indicate that by 2050, secondary supply (recycling) for aluminum, copper and nickel could meet about 60 per cent of the demand. Despite the enthusiasm among researchers and economists, however, these long-term projections indicate the difficulty of transitioning to a circular economy. Indeed, these predictions show that a 40 per cent unmatched demand must continue being supplied by primary sources like mining.
Read more: Slow mining could be a solution to overconsumption in an increasingly fast-paced world
In my model, recycling is represented as a set of springs resisting the extraction of additional mineral resources. To achieve 100 per cent recycling of the entire spectrum of the mineral resources, our economy needs to solve problems that are not achievable with today’s technology. Furthermore, when developed on an industrial scale, recycling plants raise some of the same environmental challenges of large mineral processing and smelting plants.
Amidst this backdrop, the circular economy has presented itself as a transformative solution predicated on keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. It challenges the linear extract-produce-dispose approach and questions the sustainability of perpetual economic growth, especially in a world with finite resources and known environmental constraints. Analogous to the (un)sustainable machine model, I also propose the model of the (un)sustainable cone of demand and consumption.
The (un)sustainable cone model highlights the discrepancy between an economic concept based on the idea of a closed-loop system (circular economy) and the current financial framework based on the idea that infinite growth is possible. The larger the unbalanced cross-sectional area of the (un)sustainable cone of demand and consumption, the larger the stresses imposed upon Earth’s planetary boundaries.
A different path?
To remain within Earth’s planetary boundaries requires solutions beyond simple technical means. Actions by a few individuals are not sufficient. As engineers, we often believe it is possible to develop solutions to mitigate the anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s planetary boundaries. However, by doing so, we fail to realize that finite barriers to growth remain and that our engineering solutions may in time become part of the problem.
It is essential for individuals who are not economists or environmental scientists to think about the meaning of sustainability in the context of extracting mineral resources. At the same time, economists and social-environmental scientists need to recognize that when it comes to mineral resources, policies and permitting regulations should not be addressed separately from the technical and economic aspects of mining engineering problems.
To paraphrase the work of eminent American social scientist Garrett Hardin:
Therein is the tragedy. Each financial market is locked into a system that compels it to increase its value without limit – in a world with finite resources. Earth’s ruin is the destination toward which all companies rush, each pursuing its own best interest in a market that (only) believes in the benefits of the shareholders.
Simply put, while both policy and technology are necessary to achieve true sustainability, unless our efforts are unified across discipline and economies, there is little hope for staying within the finite bounds of what our planet can provide.
Davide Elmo receives funding from NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) and MITACS
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
