Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
This definition makes the important point that industrial ecology strives to
be objective, not normative.While industrial ecology studies may be under-
taken for subjective reasons—to develop more environmentally efficient
technology systems, or identify opportunities to conserve resources, for
example—the studies themselves, like any scientific effort, should be trans-
parent, replicable, and falsifiable. Thus, where cultural, political, or psycho-
logical issues arise in an industrial ecology study, they are evaluated as
objective dimensions of the problem. Additionally, it is important to note
that, while for a number of reasons industrial ecology studies to date have
tended to focus on manufacturing and manufactured products, the scope of
the field is broader, including all elements of economic activity, such as
mining, agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, and consumer behavior. Both
demand-side (consumer) and supply-side (producer) aspects of economic
behavior, and the consequent impacts on natural systems at all temporal and
spatial scales, are included. Equally important, industrial ecology includes
not only economic activity in advanced economies but also subsistence
human activity at the fringes of formal economic systems. After all, many
critical impacts, both in terms of human health and in terms of ecosystem
and biodiversity maintenance, are generated by activities at that level.
The focus on manufacturing to date reflects both the traditional focus of
environmental science and regulation and the history of the evolution of
the field. The term “industrial ecology” seems to have been first used in
1970, in the title of a journal with a small circulation and a short life (appar-
ently only one issue was ever printed). Judging by the subject matter, it was
intended simply to reflect the fact that industrial activities impacted nature.
In 1972, however, Japan's Ministry of Industry and International Trade
began considering such a metaphor as suggesting a model for structuring
the Japanese industrial system; however, that effort was dropped with the
coming of the energy crisis of 1973. In 1989, Robert Frosch and Nicholas
Gallapoulos revived the term as an analogy, suggesting that industrial sys-
tems could be more efficient if their material flows were modeled after nat-
ural ecosystems.
10
In parallel, several important studies of the interrelationship between
technology and industrial activities and environmental impacts were being
published.The National Academy of Engineering was particularly active in
this area; its noteworthy early efforts include
Technology and Environment
11
and
Energy: Production, Consumption, and Consequences.
12
Another important
