Decoupling environmental impacts from economic growth Marina Fischer-Kowalski (Institute for Social Ecology, Vienna) Presentation at the CEFO Research Forum, Uppsala March 7th, 2017

What I will talk about A short narrative: how did the idea of „decoupling“ come about? What does it mean? A longer view: how was economic growth linked to the use of natural resources? Metabolic rates and global metabolic phases Learning to decouple human wellbeing from resource use and environmental impact

How did the idea of „decoupling“ come about? 1 How did the idea of „decoupling“ come about? Ernst von Weizsäcker, et al.: Books on „Factor Four“ (1995) and „Factor Five“ (2009). Basic idea: demonstrating that technological change can allow to produce the same product, the same service, with much fewer resources, much less energy, much fewer wastes and emissions. Increasing resource productivity, not labour productivity! Weizsäcker became Chair of UNEP‘s INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE PANEL (IRP, starting in 2008), with the goal to invent and drive an international policy of „decoupling“, and invited me to join. Strategically, he wanted to demonstrate that environmental concerns and economic growth / development could be reconciled by policies directed at promoting resource-saving technologies. Main idea: shifting the tax burden from labour to energy and resources.

1 Decoupling natural resource use and envir-onmental impacts from economic growth Fischer-Kowalski, M., M.Swilling et al., 2011 UNEP’s International Resource Panel is conducting a series of assessments that seek to support sustainable use of resources and to reduce the impact of any resources that are being uses. In other words, it is finding ways to decoupling resource consumption and negative environmental impacts from economic development. The study presented here explores some of the challenges of decoupling, drawing of existing literature and case studies from four countries. In future work, it expects to identify ways of meeting these challenges and providing insights from additional country-level case studies. www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling

1 The UNEP – IRP policy message “Decoupling” can be applied to many fields, from linear algebra to electronics, to trains. In the sense used here, decoupling has two meanings: resource decoupling separates resource use from economic activity, while impact decoupling separates environmental impact from economic activity. Note that in both case, human well-being increases – one of the challenges being faced.

sociometabolic mindmap 1 sociometabolic mindmap Social system size of economy, technology wastes and emissions natural resources human prosperity human quality of life environmental impact Depletion

The mindmap of „pollution control“ 1 The mindmap of „pollution control“ pollution control wastes and emissions human prosperity human quality of life environmental impact Social system size of economy, technology Social system size of economy, technology natural resources Depletion

The mindmap of „decoupling“ 1 The mindmap of „decoupling“ Social system size of economy, technology wastes and emissions natural resources decoupling human prosperity human quality of life environmental impact Depletion

Global material extraction Global metabolic rates 2 Global annual material extraction increased sevenfold, and still fourfold per capita population. BUT: Income increased even faster (world GDP times 23, per capita times 6). Global material extraction 1900-2005 Global metabolic rates 1900-2005 Material extraction Billion tons GDP Trillion (1012) international dollars Metabolic rate t/cap/yr Income International dollars cap/yr Income/cap in $ GDP in $ Ores and industrial minerals Ores and industrial minerals Fossil energy carriers Fossil energy carriers Construction minerals Construction minerals Biomass Biomass Source: UNEP International Resource Panel, Decoupling Report 2011

2 Metabolic rates and metabolic phases: global material and energy use per capita 2000 1973 Materials 1945 Energy BUBBLE British USA Lock-in Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009

The 1970s syndrome in high income countries 2 The 1970s syndrome in high income countries

Ok. Decoupling happens – so obviously, it is possible. 2 Ok. Decoupling happens – so obviously, it is possible. it is possible for economic growth to continue while reducing natural resource use and environmental impacts; in the short term there are many cost-effective opportunities for greater resource efficiency that will offset wholly or partially any costs incurred in this decoupling; in the medium to long term decoupling will generate higher economic growth than would occur on current trends of inefficient resource use, environmental destruction and climate change. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals with Ambitious Policies for Climate Mitigation Heinz Schandl, CSIRO, at the 2016 IRP / UNEP presentation to G7 meeting But can „spontaneous“ decoupling do the job?

IRP: Projections of global resource use to the year 2050 Resource use has grown steadily since 1900, and the scenarios present three choices relative to 2000. While none are demonstrably leading to sustainability, they clearly indicate that decoupling must be an important part of development discussions. UNEP, International Resource Panel 2011

2 Resource extraction und resource use 1950-2010 in mature industrial and in emerging economies Western Industrial Asia Source: Schaffartzik et al. 2014 Brussels, Feb.24, 2015

Sociometabolic rates: A log-log-linear function of income 2 Sociometabolic rates: A log-log-linear function of income Metabolic rate t/cap/yr USA Germany Brazil China R2 = 0.60 India Note that this is a log-log graph. In a linear graph, resource use tends to level off as GDP grows. Data for the year 2000 Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2011.

Interim resumé: decoupling 2 Interim resumé: decoupling Spontaneous decoupling happened and accellerated in OECD countries since the 1970s (and nowhere else) Why? because economic growth was slowing down? because material production was outsourced to emerging and developing economies? because increasing inequality reduced mass consumption? because there was some saturation of material needs? The associated change in the global division of labor gave emerging economies a chance to catch up. Fine. But globally and in the medium term, catching up with the rich is not feasible solution.

Labour, material and energy productivity 2 Labour, material and energy productivity 6.51 US$/h 0.10 US$/MJ 0.75 US$/kg GDP at 2005 constant prices Source: Heinz Schandl (CSIRO): 2016 Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting

3 Can the world, will the world, shift to another track, choose another pathway? will it be forced to? are there plausible scenarios? are there signs that people might enjoy that?

Raw material prices throughout the 20th century and beyond 3 Raw material prices throughout the 20th century and beyond International economic advisors start warning about rising resource prices Source: McKinsey 2012

Metal mines worldwide: Peak everything? 3 Metal mines worldwide: Peak everything? Source: Giurco et al, 2010, p.28: based on Mudd 2010, 2009, 2007

Geologists project the 21st century as the period in which all key mining resources will peak and decline 3 Element Estimated risk of scarcity (years from now) estimated peak year estimate burn-off Hubbert dyn. model pessimistic average optimistic Iron 214 176 200 2025 2040 2080 Aluminum 478 286 300 2030 2130 2230 Copper 31 71 120 2032 2038 2042 Nickel 2022 2026 2028 Gold 37 75 2012 2013 2017 Silver 14 44 30 2034 Platinum 73 163 50 2010 2015 oil 100 99 coal 78 174 220 natural gas 64 143 uranium 144 140 phosphorus 161 190 230 2100 source: Sverdrup & Ragnarsdottir 2014, pp 270-276

Scenarios for assessing resource and climate futures 3 Scenarios for assessing resource and climate futures Source: Heinz Schandl (2016), Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting

The Economist‘s final kick: Peak Car? 3 The Economist‘s final kick: Peak Car? The Future of Driving. Seeing the Back of the Car? The Economist Sept. 22nd, 2012. http://www.economist.com/node/21563280

3 Brauchen wir materielle Ressourcen für unsere Wohlfahrt? Öffentliche Meinung in Japan ändert sich…

Per capita energy use and Human Development Index (HDI) 3 HDI Yes, we can! 2005 R2 = 0,85 – 0,90 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 source: Steinberger & Roberts 2010 Energy

IRP Assessment Reports using material flow data 2011 2015 2016

3 The level of well-being achieved in wealthy industrial countries cannot be generalized globally based on the same system of production and consumption If the world would implement similar systems of production and provision for major services – housing, mobility, food, energy and water supply – nine billion people would require about 180 billion tonnes of materials annually by 2050 (Schandl et al. 2016), almost three times today’s amounts. Figure. Per-capita material footprint (MF) by seven world regions, 1990 and 2010, tonnes Source: Heinz Schandl (2016), Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting

3 Metabolic rates of the agrarian (=historical & developing countries) and the industrial regime (=OECD countries) transition = explosion MFK has already introduced the hypothesis of the metabolic transition. A hypothesis derived from empirical evidence which suggests, that industrialization leads to fundamental changes in structure and size of social metabolism. The core aspects are: Trnasformation of the energy system The role of land use within the energy system changes (from energy source to sink) And a new level of material and energy consumption is reached: population grows and with population material and energy use grows, in a second phase also per capita consumption grows. Source: Social Ecology DB Fischer-Kowalski | Davos | 9-2009| 28