Draft (written by Bettina Mueller)

PROGRAM
is open to dialogue, new ideas, will not be universal, only some major points, time also
gives limits
my suggestion:
1. history of environmentalism
----are you interested in details about environmental organisations, green parties?
2. role of science: ethics - information, theories - disproval - ideology
----here I can add something about computer modelling, if there is special interest?
3. role of different members of society: politicians, business people, media - public, laws
----more about greenwash, legal-illegal, special use of laws basing on constitution
4. environmental distruction - major topics of inhibition
5. examples of treatment in Austria, Germany and the EU - from proposal to rule, +/-
6. typically western environmental problems and ways to solve them
7. ecology - economy: parallels or contradictory? problems...
8. technologies: positive -negative, application: examples
9. solutions projects, ideas, utopies
( job - requiries for work in Europe (NOT America))
project essays

anything missing?

---> what do Chinese understand by western environmentalism?

western scientific thinking
cooperation & dialoge, combination of data and opinions, questioning of existing facts,
democratic processes
environment of worldwide importance, the whole world can contribute ideas and methods
for solving occurring problems
the west has more money, but this money should be invested in the worlwide best ideas, I
can tell you western ways, but you should especially think about eastern ways, they are the
heritage of your culture, both together can be the optimum synthesis

I will not go into biological details, but give a draft overview of the major thougts and
western instruments to solve environmental problems. I will also tell you the failures -
hoping that the east has better ideas how to manage....
examples to give a feeling for chances/possibilities and reality in exchange for Chinese
examples

history (see also HISTORY.ASC)
Europe: very old thought to be superior to nature, to use nature, agriculture (greece,
bible,...)
in Austria 13 th century law to prohibit water contamination

end of 18 th century:old family- & feudal structures destroyed by bourgeoisy -

industrial revolution & Manchester - liberalism - development of unions, strikes, struggle
for social rights....success: no infant labour, granted medical treatment,....actual situation:
balnce of political regulations an public demands
capitalism = model, socialism = ideology

oil shock in the seventies, atomic power controversy, discovery of the ozone hole, species
protection, pollution of life-essential goods,....

actual situation:
research, activism of intellectiuals, media propagation, political discussion and mass
movements, green parties, public environmental awareness, economic usage and
technology, misleading and confusion by greenwash of all products

conferences (see INTNCONF.ASC):
1972 Stockholm: UN environment conference
e.g: climate:Montreal (1987) & London (1990): Ozone layer; Toronto (1988): CO2 Berlin
1995
Rio de Janeiro (1992): UN environment conference

Western government/democracy: national level
history: origin in greece: not real (women, slaves, countryside,...)
first established in GB

1) what do you know about the features of western democacy?

- swizerland: direct democracy - people vote for everything
- Austria, Germany: indirect democracy - people vote for %age of representatives (mostly
members of a certain party)
- Germany, USA,...: national congress/federal congress (provinces);
- GB: only one congress - they decide, in each district one delegate must have the majority
to become MP (high percentage doesnt show up in parliament if there isn a majority in
the single districts
- in France and USA the president has far more power than in Germany/Austria;

2) do you know how a law is made in western democracy?

(ministery) member of parliament people directly (certain amount of votes)

parliament discusses

voting

yes no

president*
high court (if unconstitutional)*

* here in the role of a controlling instance (China: no)

EU:/ European Community/Union: supranational level
stucture:
- parliament:different countries different amount of delegates related to population
(consulting, critizising, control)
- comission: government (some countries 2, others 1 members) Austria: agriculture;
presents suggestions to the
- ministers council: legislative; each country one minister for the special task (e.g.
environment ministers) changes of comission's suggestions only in consensus possible
- european council: prime ministers (general decisions)

committee for economy & social affairs
court

NGO (GP, WWF,..) & greens/parliament consults comission discusses 1)
citizens via court not possible no veto possible 2)

parlmt. no majority in council
local govts. council decides directives suggestions become proposals
adopt into national 4) 3)
legislation

budget:
each country has to pay pledge, connected to its economic data; this money is then spent
for projects

problems:
- EU directives have to be integrated in national law - sometimes weaker than national law
many directives for alternative energies
- economic growth, standardised currency - stronger restrictions against non-EU countries
for access to EU market
- agriculture: small farmers cannot survive on their own, because prices for agricultural
products decrease; support by the union only to shut down their business because of
overproduction - big companies buy their land to produce standardised crops....
- military too much related to NATO (buiding barriers towards 3rd world - countries)

- for environment-decisions consensus necessary (nuclear power etc. excluded)
transit - problem: Austria has a treaty for a limit to big trucks trespassing it, when asking
for membership to EU this treaty was weakened....
katalysator-story
reduces CH4, CO, HC, Nox ,, developed by industry (not in Austria), law only in Austria
(no car industry), just a technical solution, no real traffic concept (car industry still
growing, CO2-Emissions too,...), in other EU countries not even possible....
reason: different industrial (= job-) situation, no common environmental thought inthe
community (wealth, industry (and also agriculture structure), car industry dependent on
world trade

- decisions very slowly, sometimes not feasible (because not introduced into national law -
many lawsuits)
- environment too little connections to other regulations (social, ...)
- international: conflicts with GATT because of internal funding of weak economics:
agriculture, which is directly related to genetic engineering and pesticide use;
car companies in worldwide combat and very aggressive marketing to sell their products
in the other part of the world: Japan - USA - Europe all netted...

have influence on GATT (general agreement of tarifs & trade) later WTO (world trade
organisation) = dominated by USA, China wants to join.

you want to hear more about GATT problems on environment???

- OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development) = supernational
economic organisation
member states: most European; USA, CAN, Mexico; Japan, AUS, NZ
has environmental directives

you want to know the details? literature?

The EU-Greens
1979: candidates for parliament elections
1984: 7 delegates elected (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Spain)
1989: 27 delegates (also France, Postugal; GB: no, election-system!)
1994: no changes
1995: Austria, Sweden,

actual situation:
- environment in the center of economics, politics (result of greens work)
- globalisation of economy (multis = 3rd world govt., oil producers, US chamber of
commerce) -- GATT
- EU Vth treaty has no reference on citizens rights & duties on the nevironment
- social dimension (high unemployment,...) no strong policies
- partnership: NGOs only observers, not participants
budget to support them was cancelled 1994
no council for sustainable development
legislation harmonisation programme till now almost ignored

Vth Environmental Action Programme (according to the Agenda 21 programme:
UNCED conference in Rio 1992)
- sustainable development according to Brundtlandt Report
- sectoral approach: mentions limits of end of pipe proposes real structural changes
- market instruments - producers & consumersmake environmental decisions for economic
reasons
- NGOs & local govt. enviro authoritieshave to contribute innovative concepts
- long term orientations fixed

has a lot of good ideas but the way its put through has critics in parliament:
- victims pay-principle
- precautionary polluters protection
- - - standstill
- desintegration principle
- sustainable nonaction strategy

Examples: see copy

1) in review by comission
2) Comission has made statements
3) Comission made official proposals
4) finally decided by Council of Ministers

reasons:
1) e.g. cars: German car industry; general: top-down - policy approach (central
regulations)
2) Greenbook on responsibility for env. damage (liability) changed into remedying =
end of pipe solution, protecting polluters
3) CO2 tax (Toronto 1988): gradually rising, relation to C-content in fossil fuel, additional
for all E-sources, electricity extra high - renewables free; will not stabilise the rise of CO2,
Council could not find an agreement (Greece: no money,...)
- packaging: (see copy): decycling, labelling = unclear, no regulations about building up
recycling facilities, markets/distribution systems for recycling products - prices fall
4) structural funds regulations: regional, social , agricultural (have to show up reports
about env. state, impact assessment, role of authorities
result: Comission report a) not precise enough,... - not implemented (= delay), b)
sustainable development = implementation of enviro. law - became sustainable growth =
no incentives for efficient use of energy, natural resources, nothing about future
generations (e.g. sustainable sewage treatment plant)

problems in decisionmaking:
- uncertainty of scientific results (lead to delay-strategies)
- money: natural resource prices not realistic, labour prices in poor countries, social
conflicts
- structural problems & bureaucracy - delay

DEFINITIONS:
- end of pipe - solutions: attempts to repair a damage afterwards, sometimes
impossible, mostly too expensive, but a market for high tech; ONLY useful to repair the
mistakes of the past!

- sustainability (first defined in the Brundtlandt-Report): satisfies actual requirements
without determining future generations from satisfying their demands.Means: no fossil
energy, no nonrenewable resources!

- subsidiary concept: funding problem regions (a) undeveloped, b) ruined by economic
crisis; important for social aspect); reality: renationalisation of environmental concepts
(should be colved by the community

- Agenda 21: environmental workplan negotiated by UNCED in Rio 1992; China signed!

Role of science (see also OZONE.ASC)
example
- theory builds a thesis: (example:CO2 in the air - changes) - all theories can be disproved,
nothing is the absolute truth, each position has counterparts, especially when also political
or society question....
- experiment: (example: digging an ice-cylinder on the N- or S-pole - certain layers contain
typical amount of CO2, but also other substances, typical for a period of time)
- result: (example: CO2 increases in the last years, but also DDT discovered)

(the same way the O3 -hole was discovered....
theoretical research, lots of computer calculations: more short wave radiation on the S-
pole
an army plane takes special pictures and discovers the O3-hole - a proof of the theory)

- scientists evaluate their results and choose the media to publish it, so that decisionmakers
are informed
who makes the decisions? politicians, business people, public opinion,....
the scientist has the duty to inform the right persons about important matters in the best
way for the benefit of the environment (some people are considering to broaden the
Hippokrates oath from medicine to all scientific actions - especially considering
environment)

a collection of data which nobody can use or which cannot be compared with other data
are useless
some data can be used for the wrong purpose

polticians hand the matter again over to scientists for computer models and scenarios -
which action changes which factor in which way how much,....
models are never perfect, because nature, economy, human behaviour are too complex
BUT: you can handle them, they help at decisions

short overview of the problems:
why especially those? worst destruction (quality - ex: dioxin; quantity - ex: CO2 ), easy to
eliminate (new technologies, prohibitation of wasting,...) without economic problems,
major social or health problems (everyone agrees to actions)

why? factor life quality: = result of negotiations, different people see different factors
important
poor countries: survival = life quality, no matter for which damage to nature
wealth is always a comparison with others - the safest wealth is poverty of demands
(Werfel) has a positive meaning.....
in richer countries for some people a car is more life quality than fresh air to breathe - to a
certain extent!
at least environmentalism means survival; so some damages already cause serious threats
to human life:
climate - ozone, traffic , energy
chemistry: chlorine , heavy metals
nuclear (Austria, Cech Republic, France - high radiation in Europe 30 years ago, waste
transport,... military) - fossil vs. nuke-energy
species, rain forest
resources - garbage (, what about Chinese recycling systems????
food pollution - water, genetic engineering

2 origins: science results - destruction of life essential goods
indigenous cultures - sustainability

-) a few people present ideas to media: a) public, b)politicians, c) business
1) action (attention)
2)horror visions (fear)
3) info (knowhow)
-) 2 famous groups: WWF (oldest) species, later rainforest
GP: nuclear testing, Germany - chemistry
now: social problems - environmental problems; ecology - economy

EU: sustainable agriculture, transportation, energy, pollution managemen & technologies,
resources & society research

Chlorine:

Na Cl - reactive - organo-Cl CFC - O3-hole
commercially useful stabile compounds PVC (additives) - waste
not natural pesticides (poisons themselves..)
solvents, pulp & paper
chlorine business: in USA, EU not good because of enviro awareness
action target: one company with many legs, which can switch over easily - later others
follow..

O-HOLE:
1931: first CFC - factory (DuPont, USA)
1970: detection by Crutzen, Molina, Rowland (M, R: connection to CFC)
1987: Montreal protocol: ind. countries: 1995 CFC, 2015 HCFC; Russia etc: 2000 CFC,
develop.: 2010 CFC; H3CBr
no national effects: HCFC & H3CBr in dev. countries

problems: companies switch over to other hal. C-compunds, other countries
health: sun-protecting industry (business) not possible for plants, plancton (O2)

where used: sprays (mech, other chemicals; pharma: asthma-sprays replaced by powders)
fridges & air con
foam , fire extinguishers (CO2, N2,....
PVC: 1913 patented; 58 % in construction of buildings
monomer: poison, explosive - polymer: contains dioxin, softeners (DEHP), stabilisers
(heavy metals) - burning: dioxin (cable isolation, waste treatment,...)
Austria: law: in toys, some packaging forbidden
P&P: in Austria a company is making profits with a research plant on oxygene bleaching
(mobile)
SOLVENTS: computer industry already found alternatives, chemical cleaning of clothes
also
PESTICIDES: Europe: alternative farming; USA selling pest to S_America and
reimporting their products - poisoning (US law and consumers rights...)

ENERGY, CO2, GREENHOUSE:
CO2: major emittants: energy traffic deforestation (to get land; others: for p&p)
CH4: foss. fuels, cattle, rice paddies
N2O: agriculture, traffic

ENERGY:
Energy: saving systems: real tariffs/taxes - technologies
power stations, renewables
household, construction (69%)
industries (NaCl electrolysis, Al processing, steel industry,...)

technol: often escapes from real target,...
some companies hire experts

nukes: dont produce E for small consumers
very expensive (in the west too expensive)
waste (also in China), transport
better: investing in efficiency, renewables, (small decentralised hydro)

TRAFFIC
more roads - more traffic - more place wasted
oil industry=car industry
noise, accidents
avoiding: nonsense transports because low labour prices; urban planning
public transport
Brenner story
sometimes its difficult to see all relations between human action and natures reaction -
lack of information = overinformation

market economy mechanisms
value, price (needs individual property as a basis, environment is no individual property -
no price), profit - product always connected to demands
product - product (different values), product - money - product ----- money - product -
money+ (+ ....interest rates)
+ indicates growth of values and product (inflation), are artificially created by capitalism,
no limits accepted, but: human capability has limits
money - money * - money + stocks exchange ... no direct connection to product, demands
(at stock markets trade of many times the real amount of produced oil)
service: money directly connected to demand
environment should have a price (see solutions), change of legal system necessary -
promoted by public demand; if GNP not connected with resource- usage any more
(example: art is expensive, but minimum environmental destrucion...- production factor
education: few resources, good investment - lots of profit)

technologies
intermediate, end of pipe, political strategy/dead end road, high-tech: permillage gain for
high costs
rich countries are so clean... - if this money would be invested in poor countries, the
result for the whole world would be more far reaching
cheap technologies in poor countries, problems in energy-resource/waste-
technologiesEuropean waste separation system, energy efficiency of engines,....., car
catalysator

greenfreeze - project
- 1990: 2 scientists in Dortmund (Western Germany) developed propane/butane refrigeration (for
foaming AND cooling agent system
- industry ignores them and researches CFC-technology
- DKK Scharfenstein (former Eastern Germany) agreed with Greenpeace for PR cooperation
- Treuhand (German state agency for administrating the reconstruction of East German
industry) wants to close DKK down
- prototype developed and presented at a press conference - Treuhand agreed not to close
it down
- PR campaign brought 50 000 orders DKK was privatised, other German fridge
companies still didnt research on CFC free technologies, because they cannot be patented
- 1993 production start - 300 000/year; PR-tour to China (technology very cheap!!) - Joint
Venture projects
- other German fridge companies joined, international companies all over the world
interested, later joined...also intensive research for energy efficiency
- UN-financing for China and India accapted, also Africa, South America
- 1995 Qingdao factory also sells greenfreeze technology

pigshit-story
actual problem: pigshit no good fertilizer, bacteria contaminated, pollutes water (pigs ill),
treatment needs a lot of energy Australian company developed cheap & simple
mechanical technology to use pigshit as fertilizer and energy source
application in China: many small farmers have to unite in one plant, easy to copy,
because construction & maintainance with local equipment possible - high investment but
no profits for the company, even the danger of selling the same technology with Chinese
equipment in Australia...

JOINT VENTURES (JV) - 2 ways
1) both countries give list of supportable projects according to internationalenvironment
statutes- send them to the other country's ministery of economy, environment
- they pass it on to chamber of commerce (Austria: representative of industry, state agency
of environment, China: sector representatives: science & technology comission, national
environmental agency) for approval
- delegations (government) pick out the best projects, check them, if they are according to
their statutes and start negotiations, also visit the other country
- industry signs letter of intend (not binding), investment starts
2) feasability study presented to world bank and the concerned governments (has to be a
detailed plan of the project)
companies compete for the second part
patent problem (see also Greenfreeze) role of universities as state supplied institutions -
develpment of non patentable worldwide useful cheap technologies for special use in poor countries

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
what should be calculated:
- time length & geographical area (incl. effects on people)
- urgency & time for stabilisation of environment
- degree of irreversible damage

also includes::
- effects on health, productivity,...
- biophysical & socioeconomic changes
- comparison of situation with - without project
- interferences with other development projects

How to price environment or welfare?
(at least good environment is welfare, because the earth doesnt care for pollution...)
- individual (can differ very much, - different interests...)
- societal (models give prices to costfree goods)

Models: comparable, complete, logical, flexible (content), dynamic (time)
short term: econometric (good database necessary)
medium term: input-output analysis (substitution of variables not possible)
long term: compatible general equilibrium models (empirical method, used in political economy)
problem not clearly defined: systemdynamical (optimating of costs and benefits)
very complex problems: modular model (matter : t; energy: TJ, people (pers)/labour (pers x year),
economy (amounts, prices, turnover)

on site
off site

market goods

non market goods

- start with the most obvious, simple impacts, which can be evaluated by market prices
- costs & benefits: avoided costs = benefits (vice versa)
- comparison with - without project (NOT including already spent money - new budgeting
necessary!)
- all considered data stated explicitely, so that other project can be considered using those
data for coordination
- indirect pricing: e.g. bad air reduces values of land areas,..etc, health problems

objective valuation approaches - damage functions
example. quantitative & qualitative impacts (e.g. an air pollutant):
a) measured in health impacts costs, soiling of buildings,...CYBERNETICAL!
b) if a) impossible: construct possible markets - survey, how many people would pay
problem: over/underinformation, mass phenomena,...

economic life of a project:
if impact to environment shorter than economic impact - calculation easier; usually adverse
- mostly secundary effects - have to be included!

usually development-projects are undertaken by governments; they also have to calculate
interest rates: - Models

1) opportunity of capital: one invested $ should bring more than it costs (including
inflation etc)
2) borrowing money: usually also third parties cash interest rates (banks, foreign states,..)
reality shows: high discount - short term proj. favored; low interest rates - long term
3) you have to calculate trends and booms (in the beginning overconsumption, later
balanced out - consumption is not linear...)

changes in productivity: identified off & on site
regular watch-out for changes - always compared with no project - possibility
time measures

some examples:
A) value impacts
1) cost of illness approach: useful, if: direct cause & effect relation
NOT life threatening/chronic effects (proj. abandoned!)
subsistent farmers &unemployed workers - shadow
price - earnings estimated
a) medical costs; b) reduction of earnings (- profits)
problem: well earning people (rich countries) more worth? (all concerned persons -
arithmetic average)

Mexico City: Air Pollution
air pollutants: quality & quantity (suspended matter, ozone, lead)
population: age distribution (only 55 % adult)
dose response - relation (morbidity, mortality; US relations used)
costs of treatment, wages, (life)

=> restricted activity days (RAD, days/pers/year)
suspended matter: compared to legal levels: 0.6 days 850 Mill US $/year
ozone 102 Mill US $/year
lead 125 Mill US $/year
total: 1.1 Bill. US $/year!

2) opportunity cost
Hell Canyon (US): dam project or preserving (= creating another energy source .... costs)
preserving was cheaper than destroying
This method is common for preserving nature reserves

B) value costs
1) cost-effectiveness analysis (if benefits are difficult to monetise):
- fix a standard (emissions, exposure limit,...): costs of rising it, costs of keeping it
- value different ways to get it (technologies, management strategies,..)
- chose a method/change the standards (according to international, seriousness of enviro
impact (life threat,..), evaluate effects of most expensive method, find alternative projects)
- if necessary: cancel (Zwentendorf -story)
2) preventive expenditures: = what are individuals willing to pay for?
problems: depends on gneral economic situation, enviro awareness
relies on surveys in the public
3) replacement - & relocation costs
evaluating the costs of replacing, relocating the destroyed environment or parts of it
- calculation methods often vary related to who takes them....
C) surrogate market prices
1) travel cost (e.g. luxury goods from distant places have an ecological backpack, which is
bigger with every m of travelling; people travelling from the city to nature for recreation;
costs of travelling to far away countries just for the short experience of holidays)
2) market goods as enviro surrogates
costs of private swimmingpools to subsidise clean lakes or the sea (I know tourist camps
at the seaside in Italy, where you have to pay more for this opportunity)
D) contingent valuation methods (experimental)
1) willingness to pay
ask people how much they would pay for....... - statistics - possible fees related to number
of consumers
2) payment acceptance
how high must the amount of offered money be for the allowance to destroy environment?
...
because they are experimental they show the problems of laboratory tests.... reality can be
different!
E) property value
1) property can loose value due to enviro damage, e.g. houses: bad air, noise,.... see city
planning...
gain value: building an underground, near to a park, traffic reduced area,...
2) wage differences: better workers will choose clean companies/healthier jobs,... if they
have the joice.
F) macroeconomic techniques
see table

Problems: how to calculate?:
- income distribution (rich countries - poor countries: distribution different!)
- intergenerational equity (planning sustainability for many generations - economic growth
to which result??? population growth & area distribution; growth of social welfare,...)
- risk & uncertainty (relying on models - if important variables are missing...?) (cotton in
North Africa - project; prices fell unforeseeably, pesticides,..now desert)
- irreversibility: desertification, species dyout,...
- biodiversity (survival of the cutest?)
- human life
- cultural, historical, esthetic resources (culture species diversity? Aswan dam in Egypt -
Abu Simbel)

Project essays

1) Chengdu garbage recycling system: prices, matter fluxes, whose profit

2) river project: public opinion - especially of the dislocated people - with special concern on environment

3) green area in Chengdu: intended purposes - cartography

4) list of lokal institutions and companies working for environment (old list of the trade comission -
verification, English speaking contact persons) - maybe for later cooperation with Europe

5) environment in the Chinese history & culture; 3-4 indigenous sustainable technologies (NO high tech,
should be useful for poor countries) - fit for international support or already making profits (please dont
chose Doujiangyan or the biogasplants - they already appeared in Austrian literature 10 years ago....)

6) list of companies in and upriver Chengdu which discharge into Jinjiang - river (both arms): chemical,
paper, leather

7) low budget applied research possibilities on environmental protection in Sichuan Union University
according to the existing features

typically western: (Austria = average western country USA most of the problems 2 times as high)

. Energy extremely cheap: consumation:
11kW/pers.h = 1 US-citizen = 2 CIS (former soviet union) citizens = 3 Austrians = 5
GBritains = 18 Chinese = 60 Indians = 160 Tanzanians = 1 100 Ruandese
meat consumation: 1 cal investment - USA 0,5 cal, India 16 cal food production
garbage production, energy consumation per person grows parallel to wealth
. economic growth (passed on from the industrial countries to others, = world
culture?)basing on the idea, that humans can rule nature (see history)
. labour prices - social dumping - leads to high tech production (in rich countries, but
also) in poor countries - internal problem (jobless people) : Chinas solution????
. stiff economic structures lead to end of pipe - solutions (petrol prices since oil shock,
E-waste in USA, biological fuels - Arab shares in car industries, cargo transport in EU) -
repair technologies in rich countries soon too expensive, what about poor countries???
lots of projects for regulation at the beginning in EU are weakened later on....
. CO2- production shows real contribution of a country to the world pollution (China:
2nd highest after US)
. high level laws vs reality: regulations at end of pipe impossible to manage:
EU water regulations (agrochemical pollution): very strict, but not managable, because no
regulations for agrochemicals - purification too expensive - neglected..... - regulations
have to be connected in a system, starting at the beginning of the process
. luxury life (initiating demand in poor countries) - absurd demands (electric
toothbrush,...), lazyness (private car use for short distances,..), one way products
(aluminium beverage cans, plastic bags,..)
. resources: west has few, but money/political & military power to press other countries
(US-army in S-America to save metal mines)
. recycling - from reuse (poor countries) to decycling technologies
. deintegration of living areas (living, working, shopping, leasuretime areas separated -
cause traffic...)
recycling: to 80% efficient, more is waste of energy - less production more useful
. alu cans: 40 t bauxit = 1 680 000kW/day (needed directly at the mine - big dams in the
Amazonas reagion) = 10 t raw aluminium = 500 000 cans (consumation Austria/day) ;
poisons (caustic red sludge, F-emissions at elektrolysis), transportation (energy, CO2 ,
accidents); recycling = decycling (cans are dirty, oxygenated, contain paint,etc...
recycling-products of low quality, process needs a lot of chemicals, energy, byproducts
are poisonous waste)
. ecological backpack: each product has backpack (containing resources, energy,
km,.....) - always & everywhere available
. 1993: China less person cars than Austria (economy growth 10-15 %/a)

. abstraction of economic - ecologic relations (too many interactions)
. world culture (western?): equalising different cultures & specifities, civilisation (Coca
cola etc., Corbussier-architecture, TV-programmes, agriculture, hygiene standards,
business suits & jeans, ...) leads to a terrible loss of knowledge (species diversity)
. permanent change (partial destruction) stabilises a system

INFLUENCE ON CULTURE??

what about China? differences, parallels....
anything missing?

SUSTAINABILITY
satisfies actual demands without limiting future generations with satisfying their demands.
(e.g. no reduction of nonrenewable energy-sources,...)

avoiding the unnecessary (production, consumption,...
Energy cascades: each step in a process should produce as little entropy as possible (if
you put every consumer product into terms of Joule, you can calculate how many bowls of
rice is one big car - how many people could eat from that amount of energy...)
developing technologies to do so (e.g. watching & copying natures solutions) and
sharing them all over the world
Bottom - up management: in nature partial synusia: small autark cells in a relation
network for buffering & coordination (biological system): if one fails, the others can
compensate...

Model villages: solar energy, energy cascades, diversity (usage of all available possibilities
- longterm economic profits), netting, endless-principle (activities without negative
results (poisons etc) & waste of resources), coupling of open production with circular
production, correction (detecting mistakes and
solving them)

resource - aim
Emission - aim
Risk - aim

saving
avoiding
reduce

sparing
preventing
avoid

utilise
limitate

dispose

of rare resources
of emissions & wastes
of potential dangers and risks

limitation
limitation

solutions: ideas:
. check-card system - usage of environment/pers. a
. property-shares for environment (trade possible)
. bottom up - system: small autark cells in a relation network for buffering & coordination
(biological system)
. quality growth instead of quantity growth (service (jobs for many people!!!!)/knowhow,
not mass production) - know how high tech!
. contracts for commodities (ex: y C room temp, the less energy investment, the cheaper
for the providing company; x hours/day transportation, ........maximum = 35 , 24 h,...)

projects:
. tax system: producer (of environmental damage) pays (now: consumer pays)
. car sharing: private cars only 5 % of their time used (need a lot of space), already some
projects existing, too few members (beginning...)
. ecological calculation obligatory (resource streams minimated - no waste) in companies
- already shows good economical results!!!
. biological area planning (40 % , in 2000 50 % of world population live in cities - my
project...): reintegration of infrastructures & mixed area concepts, energy, traffic concepts
. to make damge visible/ touchable for the human senses (poison/radiation....): medicine
(research on environmental diseases - O3-hole,...), economy (calculate losses - cotton -
tropospheric O3)

job requirements
- ability to work independently (shown up in projects) and speak freely (rhetoric skills)
- ability to contact people in government, companies, media,... (e.g.: to get fundings...)
- 2 languages besides Chinese (one of them English)
- an overview on economy (cost calculating, management strategies, ...)
- special interests besides the lecture programme (in the companys field)
- knowledge of western work morals: not to waste companys time and money (for
example business dinners...); independent creativity (besides what you are ordered),
governing abilities (to pass work on to others in even distribution and sufficient
information...)
18
seminar: western ecology