When scientists talk about an industry's impact on the environment, they often try to quantify the damage caused by that industry, he says Matthew Eckelman, associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; at Northeastern University.
“You're looking at a chemical being emitted from some industrial facility,” says Eckelman. “Where does this chemical go in the environment? What kind of population is it going to cause exposure to? And how much will they get?'
“Then we can calculate how many cases of cancer there might be. How much extra asthma there might be as a result.'
The field of industrial ecology makes an important intervention, he argues: “We're trying to quantify how much benefit there might be to nature” by reengineering industrial approaches.
They can then do cost-benefit analyzes that show policymakers the benefits of adopting processes rooted in ecology.
“Industry” and “ecology” may seem unlikely bedfellows. “A lot of people are watching [those two words] and they scratch their heads a little bit,” says Eckelman.
“Industrial ecology is a field of environmental management,” he says. Formalized in the late 1980s and 1990s, industrial ecology was the forerunner of modern sustainability science.
“It was born out of business,” Eckelman continues. Industry professionals “saw the enormous amount of waste” that went into production, with very little re-use of resources. “It's a ridiculous way to design,” he says. “It's cost-effective,” but irresponsible with natural resources.
“Sustainability science tends to focus on more natural systems, whereas industrial ecology says, 'How can we make the industrial system work more like nature?'
By making industry more like nature, industrial ecologists ask questions like “How do we close the loops?” Eckelman says, or what if “we could design a building to be completely deconstructed,” all of its parts reused. “The idea is that in nature there is no waste.”
With Thomas Graedel, professor emeritus of industrial ecology and chemical engineering at Yale University, Eckelman has co-authored a new edition of the basic textbook on industrial ecology.Industrial Ecology and Sustainability.”
Graedel co-authored the first and second editions, entitled “Industrial Ecology”, with BR Allenby of Bell Labs.
When Graedel wrote the first edition, “it was the first industrial ecology textbook,” says Eckelman. But rather than just a new addition, Eckelman says, “We threw out everything from the previous version and started from scratch. So it's essentially a new book.”
One of Eckelman's new contributions to the handbook is on health care and sustainability. Because “health care already has a mission,” he says, researchers don't want to suggest changes. “Nothing should stop doctors from doing what is best for their patients.”
But within the industry, “clinicians and staff see the waste in the health care industry,” he argues. Health care generates “a sizable portion of greenhouse gas emissions and total resource use” in the United States.
“But you can change the way things are made, the way they are designed, the way they are managed in inventory, the processes to address energy use in hospitals.”
“And I'm proud to be one of the people who wrote some of the first papers in this area,” he notes. “So it's nice to be able to shine a light on that.”
The handbook also teaches readers how to start thinking like conservationists. “You learn about natural food webs and the different trophic levels in nature,” in which resources and nutrients move along the food chain from plant producers to predators.
Industrial ecologists think of industry in the same terms. “When you look at industrial systems, you can say, 'Well, these are technically nutrients moving up the industrial food chain.'
Gesturing at a disposable coffee cup, Eckelman says the same ecological ideas demonstrate waste in disposable items.
“Nature would never do that. It helps you see—and reflect on—how wasteful the current production system is.”
Beyond the engineering challenges that industrial ecology can represent, often the biggest issue is that “people don't talk to each other,” says Eckelman. “So you might have a steel plant right next to a cement plant. But it's not like they're getting together for lunch.”
But that doesn't mean an industrial ecologist can't get the two to communicate. “One may have materials that the other could use as raw material. And they would save a lot of money, they would save a lot of disposal costs and they would have great environmental benefits.”
Once they discuss the right parts, convincing them of the value of an industrial-ecological method becomes easy.
Many businesses wanted to make greener products or use greener processes, he continues. “A lot of people look at the industry and think they're the bad guys.”
“There's a lot of bad behaviour, I don't want to give them a free pass or anything. But there is also a great desire to make things better,” whether out of moral concerns or economic motivations.
“One thing I think industrial ecology does very well is that it doesn't place considerations”—whether environmental or economic—”in silos,” says Eckelman. Rather, these considerations are in constant dialogue.
Industrial ecology has been “very useful in engineering, but it draws from ecology, from sociology, from business, it has many perspectives.”
As a field, Eckelman says, “it's very interdisciplinary.”
And it's a field ripe for growth, he concludes. Many changes are apparent once you consider the whole picture. “Just to borrow a phrase from a friend of mine, it's like being a giant in a valley of low hanging fruit.”
Noah Lloyd is a senior writer for NGN Research. Email him at n.lloyd@northeastern.edu. Follow him on X/Twitter at @noahghola.
