• Energy Research
• Sustainability close

Since the introduction of neoclassical economic theory, material wealth and accumulation have been linked to hedonic wellbeing. In turn, Utilitarian notions have generated the belief that infinite growth is not only good but necessary for society to prosper. Unsurprisingly, this belief system has supported the considerable depletion of natural resources and has not always led to social equitability or environmental justice, two pillars of sustainable development. Given these limitations, this paper looks into eudaimonic wellbeing, as defined by Stoicism. The latter originating in Classical Greece and Ancient Rome, has been used throughout the centuries to discuss and support the flourishing of individuals, but has rarely been applied to collective wellbeing. Consequently, we explore whether, and to what extent, this virtue-based philosophy can answer questions regarding the value and the role of material acquisition in societal development, as directed by sustainable policy. We propose the idea that the Stoic emphasis on prudence, self-control, courage and justice, as the only means to achieve “happiness”, is intrinsically linked to sustainable wellbeing and that its principles can be used to demonstrate that society does not require limitless growth to flourish.

Energy has been at the forefront of the sustainable development discourse for quite some time as policymakers, industry heads and society at large have taken progressive steps to cut carbon via renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures. Unfortunately, some of these methods have given rise to perverse socio-environmental effects; as materials have been unnecessarily sacrificed, mines and wells have opened and plantations grown, in the name of energy saving. This paper contributes to clean energy-orientated policies and practices by exploring the discipline of sustainable materials. We first review two strategies: energy efficiency linked to materials; and material efficiency, meaning “doing more with less.” We find that, although both contribute significantly, they are hampered by the rebound effect and their focus on “doing less bad” rather than “good”. Furthermore, they do not in themselves evaluate the services and societal wellbeing that materials provide. We then define “material services” and propose a wider strategy that encompasses and enhances the previous two. Under the new strategy, we argue that sustainable materials should be considered as those that do no harm and which optimally, through the services provided, contribute to better sustainable development policies and practices.