Defining targets and resources, for a certain system, is of course not without effect on outside systems performances. These are usually neglected . Therefore a small analyses of these effects are needed before trying to improve the definitions. A few of the most important issues are here explored.

System borders and limits

It must be recognized that "act local" will not always be without consequences on Global level, as well as on the "product level". In fact there are three main levels recognized, as more in-depth analyzed in a exploration of Closed Cycle operation ( xx, see website) .

There is only one earth, which sets limits to the amount of resources available for "biosphere" operation, in our case by humans mainly. The only additions to the system come from solar radiation, which adds to the total quality of the system, all other earth bound uses decrease the quality of the global system. It's in constant decline for equilibrium, only delayed by the amount of solar radiation captured (and stored!).

This means that all non directly solar based use of resources on the short, will deplete that resource in due time. Whether its 10 years or 100 years or more. This not what we want.

So to operate in a closed cycle balance of resources means that all resource use is bound to a maximum, related to time, in which the system can re-generate the quality, to avoid depletion. This will usually mean that we will have to rely on relative short term regenerative resources, usually referred to as "renewable".

This implies that there are borders set by the global system, within which subsystems can operate: There will in the end not only be a transition towards renewable energy needed, for instance, but there could be a maximum to be used by subsystems of a (renewable) resource.

This will address mainly mass bound resources and therefore materials and biomass, not so much direct "solar energy" which is coming from outside the system. This is a first indication that from an energy point of view its will be no problem to switch to direct streaming resources, like radiation and wind, however earth bound grown resources will have limits ("land"), which can not be overruled by subsystems ("countries or cities for instance) (see also "renewables").

So thinking in line with current trends , we can recognize three main levels to deal with in relation to managing the built environment: : The global level , which sets the total system levels and limits; the product/building level , which has to create and operate products and buildings as effective as possible, and in between the "Urban/regional" levels, which are managing resources at stock level, and taking the lead in improving (sub-) system performances, ( by the claims studied in this paper).

More specified: when a product or building is designed and constructed, this should be done with the best environmental performance, following all the knowledge and rules to fit in a closed cycle process.

The permission to produce/construct, to renovate or demolish, is part of the urban/regional level: planning and managing the stock, which applies own rules set at this middle-system level.

This implies that a claim by a system just to change for renewable energy , does not imply that all is well: if all cities and regions in the world claim to be neutral for instance, with importing biomass and offsetting CO2 in forests for instance, it could well be that there is not enough offsets or imports to suit all in a balanced system. In order to import, another system does have to provide export from a positive production. This brings us to analyse the exchange between sub-systems:

Exchange and offsets

The above is of importance for an urban level system to operate when making or including exchanges outside its boundaries. Two examples to illustrate this:

In a recent project (a new plan for a Dutch region plan) it was calculated that if certain industries and offices would operate centralised from this region, the transport efficiency would increase and CO2 emissions greatly reduced compared with the planned scattered development (outside system/region addressed). This was used as an argument to develop and construct in this region, with CO2 reduction in mind. However, if this is allowed as an argument, the re-location of planned industries and offices, should include its forbidden to develop activities in the original targeted locations outside the regional system addressed. Otherwise experience learns that in time opportunistic local policies will lead to both: activities in the subject region, and later as well in the available alternative locations.

Of course the region involved has no means to forbid construction in another region, so this argument will be a nonsense claim and a free ride for further increase in activities and CO2 emissions.

A second example comes from the import of renewable energy from Norway, to meet Dutch increased demand for renewable energy. Indeed, the amount of renewable energy in The Dutch system increases. However the second involved system is Norway: they are exporting renewable energy, which they had anyway, but at the same time replacing their decreased own RE potential with additional supply by gas and oil generated energy. The situation in the Netherlands improves, however eliminated by Norwegian development. So again: the improvements in one system can not be seen independent from a second system, if cross border activities are included, like im- and exports and offsets .

In the Netherlands pilot program, two principles have been developed, cities can choose from: a Make and a Buy principle: in the Make principle, the city produces, reduces and or compensates within its own boundaries. In the Buy scenario they can import or offset outside their own system boundaries: But in that case it's not a free ride, as above argued.

Therefore:

In the case of certain system assessed (and system borders can be for example at urban, city, or building level), exchange of energy or emissions (eventually averaged over a time period with other systems,) under only the assumption that other areas performance will remain positive or improve, can not be acceptable.

There is no built-in guarantee that the activities or exchanges are only replacements, and not additional. It is likely that the second system will develop, regardless the conditions of system 1 claiming these advantages.

These outside system areas in both cases are 'value-less" exploited. That's temporarily possible, but will, in the long run lead to a crash. It would only be possible if both areas would run a same balancing policy. As long as that's not the case, the claim is a free ride.

(There is a difference between energetically balancing and economically balancing. Economically it's possible, due to the failures in the economical system to value certain resources and impacts).

In fact this leaves open only two approaches, for cross border balances:

1: the replacement of used resources to system 1 by import, should be secured in system 2, which is only the case when

A: this system (2) is incorporated in the management of system 1 or

B: system 2 applies a similar balancing management, and only exports surplus.

2: the original system (1) ensures that the imported resources, or replaced emission, will be compensated by production or emission reduction, within its own boundaries, over time.

This leaves in both cases the responsibility with system 1, either in managing either in controlling, therefore evaluating /assessing system 1 should include the effects by imports or offsets, either to include in their own balance, or to ensure that the imported resources come from a similar managed area or the offsets are part of such area. This is the only way to remain credible.

The CO2 credits system, used for industry in Europe, is an example of trying to create a balancing system of type 1B.

Acceptable offsets

All offsets in some way are under discussion at the moment: newest info on forestry even shows that possibly large scale forestry changes the albedo of the earth's surface, and could increase global warming. Storage of CO2 is yet unproven, and CDM has problems regarding reporting and securing. However this is a separate discussion, and here they are for the moment accepted as far as the definitions allow for it.

Renewables

In many claims and definitions, renewable energy plays a major role. But what is the definition of renewable energy? In another document this is more in-depth explored. Here we resume the most important outlines: A renewable source is one that can be re-grown or replaced by the same quality, but a claim should also ensure that it is regenerated. If not, again it's a free ride. Plus the fact that re-growing or replacing should be within the timeframe of use of the original source: If the time to re-grow is longer, the system decreases in quality. So for renewables there should be a relation to time and space to be incorporated in the definition: If wood is used for a energy by incineration, the amount of land to regrow that wood within the time period of use, should be exclusively earmarked for that process.

In the case of Solar or streaming energy, this is automatically the case: The moment you intercept and use solar radiation is replaced by the same quantity. There is some side effect of the amount of radiation that reaches the earth and is excluded from the earth surface radiation balance, but at the moment this can be neglected.

Fossil fuels and nuclear

In fact there is only two kind of energy resources: Fossil fuels and renewables Energy. Roughly we can say that the first is depeleted by its use,( and has Climate change impacts by its use) , the second source can be regenerated, and does not cause impacts by its use .

There is sometimes discussion about the place of nuclear energy The source for nuclear energy (fission) at the moment is Uranium. And the amount or uranium is limited, and depleted . therefore in these definitions its regarded as fossil fuel. Regenerating uranium for nuclear fission would imply a net addition of energy. ( depletion time predicted - august 2008- : 19:56 Nov 28, 2144 - www.energy.eu )