The Concept of Zero Emissions in the 21st Century
Motoyuki Suzuki
United Nations University, Tokyo Japan
Introduction
Since the Meiji Restoration, Japan saw a steady economic growth of about 1.8 percent. After the
reconstruction that followed World War II, economic growth shot up to eight percent, but
reduced to 3.3 percent after the first oil shock of the 1970s. Thus, growth of the Japanese
economy has not been steady - taking a more S-shape logistic curve, and reflecting a more
natural mechanization and industrialization of the development of the country. Since then,
Japan's growth has made it an advanced nation - with the second largest economy in the world.
Economic growth has come at a cost, however - the social patterns of lifestyle that Japan adopted
has seen high resource consumption patters, which has created a herewithto unknown problem
among advanced, industrial countries: the need for the collection and disposal of huge amounts
of waste that the current consumption -oriented society has generated. The urgency of a viable
and long-term plan for management of wastes has taken on added significance due to the limited
amount of land available for land-based systems of waste disposal. High density living
conditions, and varied patterns of living etc. have only exasperated the situation.
It has been estimated that in Japan, the annual resource intake from domestic sources is about
10.2 tons per person and about five tons of imported resources. But in order to produce the
domestic resources, approximately 40 tons of natural resources needs to be converted. A
negative output from these processes is approximately 0.8 tons of waste generated per person
that is disposed through land-fills. For the whole nation, this is about 100 million tons of waste
that is disposed via land-fills per year. While land-fills are an expensive solution for an island
nation, extensive incineration has also generated its own problems in producing toxic pollutants.
Reclaimed land and artificial islands have been short and medium term solutions, but may not be
able to handle the future volume of projected waste generation.
While the current situation has come about as a result of the mass-consumption and an emphasis
on improving the quality of life, there is a need to generate better and more sustainable lifestyles
that consume less and generate less waste. A key strategy for the next century will definitely be
sustainable development patterns - development that can last. Such strategies have become
bywords for a number of recent international conferences and reports, starting from the 1972
Stockholm conference (WCED), the Bruntland Report, and 1987 Rio Conference.
The earlier misconstructed emphasis on 'economic growth that can last' has given way to the
now-well-known and pragmatic definitions for sustainable development that calls for 'the use of
resources that satisfy present needs without sacrificing the needs of the future'. A number of
interrelated and interlinked issues in the cycle of design-manufacture-use-disposal have been
brought under the umbrella of long-term sustainable development.
How do we understand and interpret the implications of sustainable development? There are two
main goals that can be adopted within a sustainability framework:
1. To achieve human well-being within the framework of natural and sustainable bio/eco
systems
2. To maintain steady economic growth within the framework of sustainable natural resource
management
It is clear that Goal (1) is an idealistic long-term one, but would appear to be difficult to achieve
within the current situation. Thus while the ultimate goal may be Goal (1), from an engineering
point of view, it is more appropriate to aim for Goal (2).
Utilization of Natural Resources and Economic Activities
Considering the wide range of human activities and products/outputs, it would be appropriate to
divide natural resources into two types - resources that are mined, and biological resources.
Within mined geological resources, there are those that will loose its function at the end (after it
enters the anthropogenic sphere) - for example, petrol or coal. The other type of resources are
elements that remain within the anthropogenic sphere. It is clear that depending on the type of
resource being used, the consumption levels or extraction levels of a resource needs to be at
levels that guarantee long-term sustainability.
Utilization of resources needs to be done within some universal principles that transcend
individual objectives: biological resources needs to be extracted within the amount that can be
reproduced or replaced; mined resources need to be extracted based on perfect recycling systems.
Quite clearly, with regards to resources such as petrol and coal, it is important to firstly, use such
resources within certain limits as these are finite non-renewable resources, and secondly, to
simultaneously consider and develop cost-effective and renewable energy systems.
We therefore come to the realization that to achieve the goals of resource utilization mentioned
above, we have to institute a fundamental change in the structure of production and consumption
from the bottom up, within the anthropogenic sphere. From a more developmental perspective,
this would mean a reversion from a structure where we achieved a high GNP through mass
utilization and consumption, and mass waste generation patterns - to achieve high level GNP by
utilizing limited and lesser resources and minimize waste generated.
These objectives lead us to the idea of using the same set of resources repeatedly within the
anthropogenic sphere, leading to the effective utilization of resources for high resource
productivity. The issue here is to design, develop and utilize complete material circulation.
The Aim of Zero Emissions
The high growth and high production periods of 1950s to 70s of the post-war era, and its
consequent development and environmental impacts, have had negative effects in the form of
atmospheric pollution and water contamination. This led to the extensive development, in the
1970s, of technology specifically to monitor negative environmental impacts of such industrial
development processes.
The main function of such technology was to purify the pollutants, contaminated materials and
toxic wastes generated at the end of industrial processes (known as end-of-pipe technologies).
Such technologies and processes were also regulated by law - in calling for the installation of
large scale pollution prevention facilities that reduce wastes and contaminating materials.
It has to be understood that the technologies and facilities set up for pollution prevention and
waste treatment did not produce any economic effects, or did not affect the growth of the
economy. Indeed, such technologies were simply considered as an additional 'burden' on
industries, and the long-term benefits of such measures were not clearly understood or
appreciated. Clearly, the pressure to install and implement such technologies partly came from
the national governments and ministries who pushed for pollution prevention policies and
measures.
Since the 1980s however, newer concepts have come into vogue – particularly 'cleaner
production'. The management of wastes at the end of the production processes, popularly called
as 'end-of-pipe' wastes, requires the setting up of various facilities in order to regulate the waste
output that are expensive and technology intensive. The idea of cleaner production calls for a
detailed review of individual production processes and identify/rectify those stages in the
production that generate wastes – using unique technology or management inputs. The basic
drawback of this methodology is a lack of interlinking and supporting mutual policies and an
underlying fundamental principle that can unify the method. This also prevents the achievement
of a broad and lasting impact of the initiatives and measures taken. While the concept of 'cleaner
production' is frequently used, there are too many individual actions for a unified approach to the
problem.
It is within this scenario that the concept of 'zero emissions' was put forth – in contrast to cleaner
production, zero emissions concept calls for the establishment of networks of different types of
industries into clusters – aiming for the effective (re)utilization of resources which cannot be
achieved through a single or simple process. It also further aims to reduce the burden on the
environment and to achieve hierarchical material circulation of the natural system within the
industrial system. Zero emissions take the more holistic approach of a needs-oriented technology
development.
Contrary to the end-of-pipe approach mentioned above, zero emissions considers the overall
material circulation and flows – to look at upstream issues in the production processes, including
the conversion of raw materials, as well as clustering of industry based on the use of both raw
materials and intermediate products. This is popularly known as 'upsizing'. Key to
operationalizing this concept is the creation of new kinds of industry, creation of new and
diversified revenues, and new types of employment. This is in clear contrast to ordinary
pollution prevention measures or clean processes, which leads to negative investment. Zero
emissions is related to the enforcement of productivity measures that eventually leads to profit
and a better environment.
The Development of Zero Emissions Technology
Research concerning zero emissions tends to be interpreted as 'no waste' or 'zero waste' – that is,
attempting to develop a complete set of technologies for waste treatment or attempting to
develop a technology that requires no energy consumption. These ideas while valid, are not the
true intentions of the concept of zero emissions. As stated in the previous section, zero emissions
focuses on sustainable development aiming to achieve its goals through upsizing, technology
development, and higher productivity of resources. Technology development within the zero
emissions concept takes on a different approach from ordinary developmental processes.
Currently, the development of technology for cleaner processes focuses on technology to reduce
sub or waste materials, and to reuse waste within individual manufacturing processes.
Specifically, the aim of the zero emissions concept is to develop technology to recover 'valueadded' waste from individual processes. It also envisages the development of technology to
revive such waste so that it can be used as raw material in other processes, establish material
cycle/circulation, and in general develop concepts and purpose-oriented factors which would
best fit the overall production process. This, in general, calls for a more holistic view that
incorporates different types of industries.
Within such an approach, existing technology is rehabilitated in order to develop new and
separate industries on the basis of market demand – or already existing industries may be used
for a totally different area of production/manufacture. This does not of course negate the need for
new technology to be developed within the concept of zero emissions. The key issue here is that
we evaluate the need for technology and management practices not on the basis of the limited
idea of profit motives of individual/separate processes, but to look at the development of an
overall development concept and seek technology that will fit into this concept and have a
specific function in the overall material circulation. Therefore, in development of new
technology, it is important to establish accountability and clearly define the meaning and role of
such new technologies and its position within overall material cycles.
Comparison between Zero Emissions and Cleaner Production
Attempts to decrease
downstream wastes
Decrease
in
waste
production
Cost minimization
Already existing process –
countermeasure to the
process's termination
Cleaner
production
(reduce,
reuse
and
recycle)
Attempts
to
decrease
downstream wastes
Decrease
in
waste
production
Cost minimization
Changes in individual unit
processes.
Input-output analysis
The starting point
The middle point
End-of-pipe
Total Productivity
Creation of new industries
upstream
Value-added creation of
waste (waste as a resource)
Increase in income
Holistic view of production
and manufacturing process
and the creation of new
industry and employment
Final goal
Thematic Research on Zero Emissions
The above mentioned concept of Zero Emissions was promulgated in 1994 at the United Nations
University by a team headed by Gunter Pauli under the banner of 'Zero Emissions Research
Initiative (ZERI)'. This initiative brought together concepts such as industrial ecology, ecorestructuring and other macro issues, along with examples of various industrial experiments. An
intensive information campaign targeted at different stakeholders popularized the term 'ZERI'.
The initiative organized the 4th World Congress in Namibia in 1998. Among the current research
themes of ZERI is integrated biomass systems (IBS), within which experiments were conducted
in Fiji and other countries in Southeast Asia, and other such systems and experiments in Africa
(for example, utilization of IBS for water hyacinth). The 5th World Congress was held in October
1999 in Columbia, where issues such as water management practices, production systems, selfgenerating and conserving energy systems for houses, and utilization of coffee bean residue was
discussed. As can be seen, the concept of Zero Emissions has relevance for both developing and
industrialized economies.
Emphasizing the broad relevance of zero emissions to various regions and problems, the current
research cycle started in 1997 for a three-year period (research on 'Development and
Establishment of Material Circulation Aiming at Zero Emissions' which is coordinated by the
author). This project consists of an overall coordinating committee to manage activities, and
three research groups representing the academic, industrial and local community spheres. One of
the issues to be covered in the research activities, for example, concerns sound material
circulation and engineering/technology solutions in the chemical industry.
Conclusions
The paper has attempted to illustrate the concept behind zero emissions and the basic approach to
achieve the aims of the concept. One of the key issues that needs to be explored in relation to the
discussion above is the economic implications of the zero emissions concept. In order to pursue
upsizing, it will be necessary to coordinate already existing social systems where individual
industries can pursue its own profit agendas and social systems based on free competition among
industry players.
In order to pursue a zero emissions society, it will become necessary to expect producers and
industrialists to exercise strict caution and manufacture their products for the market within the
principles and concepts of zero emissions – both in terms of quality and the manufacturing
processes. This would mean that every single product is to be regulated – also taking into
consideration the state/process after the product becomes a 'waste'. A large part of this will be the
responsibility of the producer – we simply cannot consider and 'react' to waste material as we
have been doing until now.
A number of rules and regulations were drawn up in Japan during the early 1990s relating to, for
example, regulating waste material processes (industry producers are required to products that
will not generate wastes during production or sale, and develop containers and packaging that
will not be difficult to dispose and recycle once it is becomes a 'waste'). Laws on recycling, or
the cooperative system concerning the processing of waste electrical appliances were also
instituted recently. While these laws are welcome and do cover a broad range of issues, these
may not be sufficient when we consider the generation and processing of waste from a broader,
long-term perspective.
There is a clear need for a change in attitudes towards purchase and consumption behaviour of
customers. When consumers purchase a product – a car for example – they purchase a function
of the product and not the materials which compose the product. These once the consumer is no
longer satisfied with the function, the responsibility of disposing and reusing/recycling the
discarded product should rest with the manufacturer – without burdening the cost of disposal on
the consumer. Once such a culture of purchasing a function rather than a product is established,
then a drastic change on the part of the producer can be effected in scrutinizing the entire
production process and in the purchase, use and disposal of products.