Advertisement

Material and Energy Consumption in Lithuania: Towards Sustainability

  • Renata Dagiliūtė
Chapter

Abstract

Physical growth of society and related environmental burden has gained an international attention in the last decade. Focus on delinking economy growth from resource consumption was put on the top of international and national policy. Despite some improvement in resource productivity was achieved, growing demand resulted in overall increase in resource consumption (Jackson 2009). Many environmental measures and efficiency gains were outweighed by unsustainable extraction, production and consumption patterns. Therefore the need to re-examine recent development patterns and to put higher priority to absolute decoupling processes is of importance.

Keywords

European Union Gross Domestic Product Energy Intensity Final Energy Transition Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bacevičius E, Mzavanadzė N, Čiupailaitė D (2007) A baseline study on corporate social responsibility practices in Lithuania. United Nations Development Programme, Public Policy and Management Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania, UAB Kopa, 79 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Balžekienė A, Butkevičienė E, Rinkevičius L, Gaidys V (2009) Perception of ecological and technological risks: views and attitudes and of Lithuanian society (in Lithuanian). Filosofija Socialogija 20(4):237–279Google Scholar
  3. Bleischwitz R (ed) (2007) Corporate governance of sustainability: a co-evolutionary view on resource management. Edward Elgar, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleischwitz R, Giljum S, Kuhndt M, Schmidt-Bleek F et al (2009) Eco-innovation – putting the EU on the path to a resource and energy efficient economy. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringenzu S, Schütz H, Moll S (2003) Rational for and interpretation of economy-wide materials flow analysis and derived indicators. J Ind Ecol 7(2):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bringezu S, Shütz H, Steger S, Baudisch J (2004) International comparison of resource use and its relation to economic growth. The development of total material requirement, direct material inputs and hidden flows and the structure of TMR. Ecol Econ 51:97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherp A, Kopteva I, Mnatsakanian R (2003) Economic transition and environmental sustainability: effects of economic restructuring on air pollution in the Russian Federation. J Environ Manag 68:141–151Google Scholar
  8. Commission of European Communities (2001) A sustainable Europe for a Better World: a European Union for sustainable development. COM (2001) 264 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission of European Communities (2003) Integrated product policy. building on environmental life-cycle thinking. COM (2003) 302 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Commission of European Communities (2005) Thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. COM (2005) 670 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. Commission of European Communities (2008) Communication on public procurement for a better environment. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. COM(2008)400 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornillie J, Fankhauser S (2004) The energy intensity in transition countries. Energy Econ 26:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dagiliūtė R (2008a) Analysis of changes in eco-efficiency of production and consumption in Lithuania during the 1990–2006 year period. Doctoral Dissertation, Biomedical Sciences, Ecology and Environmental Sciences [in Lithuanian]. Vytautas Magnus University, KaunasGoogle Scholar
  14. Dagiliūtė R (2008b) Resource consumption and efficiency in Lithuania. Proceedings of the 7th International conference environmental engineering, May 22–23. Technika, Vilnius (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  15. Dagiliūtė R, Mzavanadzė N (2009) Sustainability innovations as the way out of current economic crisis. An international conference on interdisciplinary research crisis: catalyst for creativity and innovation. LCC International University, Klaipėda, Lithuania, (presentation) March 27–28 2009Google Scholar
  16. de Marco O, Lagioia G, Mazzacane EP (2001) Materials flow analysis of the Italian economy. J Ind Ecol 4(2):55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Economy Recovery Plan (2009) Government of the Republic of Lithuania. http://www.skatinimoplanas.lt/lt/pages/apie-esp. Accessed 20 Aug 2009
  18. EEA (2005) Sustainable use and management of natural resources. EEA report, No 9/2005. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  19. Eurobarometer (2008) Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Report 295. European Commission, EurobarometerGoogle Scholar
  20. Eurostat (2001) Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators: a methodological guide. European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Falcetti W, Lysenko T, Sanfey P (2006) Reforms and growth in transition: re-examining the evidence. J Comp Econ 34:421–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giljum S (2004) Trade, materials flows, and economic development in south. The example of Chile. J Ind Ecol 8(1–2):241–260Google Scholar
  23. Giljum S, Hak T, Hinterberg F, Kovanda J (2005) Environmental governance in the European Union: strategies and instruments for absolute decoupling. Int J Sustain Dev 8(1–2):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammer M, Hubacek K (2002) Material flows and economic development. Material flow analysis and the Hungarian economy. Interim Report, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn M (1999) Energy demand until 2010 in Ukraine. Energy Policy 27:713–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. Sustain Dev Comm, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Juknys R (2003) Transition period in Lithuania – do We Move to Sustainability? Environ Res Eng Manag 4(26):4–9Google Scholar
  28. Juknys R, Krepštuolienė D (2008) Material flow accounts (MFA) in Lithuania. Vytautas Magnus University, Statistics of LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
  29. Juknys R, Miskinis V, Dagiliute R (2005) New Eastern EU member states: decoupling of environmental impact from fast economy growth. Environ Res Eng Manag 4(34):68–76Google Scholar
  30. Markandya A, Pedroso-Galinato S, Streimikiene D (2006) Energy intensity in transition economies: is there convergence towards the EU average? Energy Econ 28:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miškinis V, Konstantinavičiūtė I, Norvaiša E, Deksnys R (2004) Prognosis for energy demand in household sector [in Lithuanian]. Energetika 1:17–24Google Scholar
  32. Miskinis V, Slihta G, Rudi Y (2006) Bio-energy in the Baltic States: current policy and future development. Energy Policy 34:3953–3964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moll S, Bringezu S, Schütz H (2003) Resource use in European Countries: an estimate of materials and waste streams in the Community, including imports and exports using the instrument of material flow analysis. European Topic Centre on Waste and Material Flows (ETC-WMF), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  34. Moll S, Bringezu S, Schütz H (2005) Resource use in European countries: an estimate of materials and waste streams in the Community, including of material flow analysis. Wuppertal Report No. 1 (2005), Wuppertal Institute, WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  35. Mont O, Bleischwitz R (2007) Sustainable consumption and resource management in the light of life cycle thinking. European Environ 17:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Energy Strategy (2007) Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. VilniusGoogle Scholar
  37. National Green Public Procurement implementation programme (2007) Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 8 Aug 2007, Decision No. 804. VilniusGoogle Scholar
  38. National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) of Lithuania (2003) Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 11 Sept., 2003, resolution No.1160, VilniusGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (1999) Environment in the transition to a market economy. Progress in Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. Programme for Blockhouses Renovation (2004) Government of the Republic of Lithuania. VilniusGoogle Scholar
  41. Ščasný M, Kovanda J, Hák T (2003) Material flow accounts, balances and derived indicators for the Czech Republic during the 1990s: results and recommendations for methodological improvements. Ecol Econ 45:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schütz H, Welfens MJ (2000) Sustainable development, dematerialization in production and consumption-strategy for the new environmental policy in Poland. Wuppertal Paper, No. 103, Wupertal Institute for Climate, Environment and EnergyGoogle Scholar
  43. Stern N (2006) Stern review: economics of climate change. HM Treasury. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/STERNreview_index.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2009
  44. The Lithuanian housing strategy (2004) Government of the Republic of Lithuania. VilniusGoogle Scholar
  45. Tukker A, Jansen B (2006) Environmental impacts of products. A detailed review of Studies. J Ind Ecol 10(3):159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on Climate Change. URL http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/item/2830/php Accessed 20 Aug 2009
  47. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Miladinova G, Paizs L (2006) Energy in transition: from iron curtain to the European Union. Energy Policy 34:2279–2297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van der Voet E, van Oers L, Moll S, Schütz H, Bringezu S, de Bruyn S, Sevenster M, Warringa G (2004) Policy review on decoupling: development of indicators to assess decoupling of economic development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries. Institute of Environmental Sciences Leiden University, CML report 166, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisz H, Haas W, Eisenmenger N, Krausmann F, Schaffartzik A (2007) Economy-wide materials flow account. Resource productivity EU-15 1990–2004. European Commission, Eurostat, Klagenfurt University, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisz H, Krausmann F, Amann Ch, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, Hubacek K, Fischer-Kowalski M (2006) The physical economy of the European Union: cross-country comparison and determinants of material consumption. Ecol Econ 58:676–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag HD 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesVytautas Magnus UniversityKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations