environmental impacts from economic growth Marina FischerKowalski Institute for Social Ecology Vienna Presentation at the CEFO Research Forum Uppsala March 7th 2017 ID: 585581
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Decoupling" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Decoupling environmental impacts from economic growth
Marina Fischer-Kowalski (Institute for Social Ecology, Vienna)
Presentation
at
the
CEFO Research Forum, Uppsala
March 7th, 2017Slide2
What I will talk aboutA 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
impactSlide3
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.
1Slide4
Decoupling natural resource use and
envir-onmental impacts from economic growth
www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling
Fischer-Kowalski, M.,
M.Swilling
et al., 20111Slide5
The UNEP – IRP policy message
1Slide6
sociometabolic mindmap
Social systemsize of economy, technology
natural
resources
wastes
and emissionshuman prosperityhuman quality of lifeDepletion environmentalimpact
1Slide7
The mindmap of „pollution control“Social
systemsize of economy, technology
natural
resources
Depletion
pollution controlwastes and emissionshuman prosperity
human
quality of life
environmental
impact
Social
system
size
of
economy
,
technology
1Slide8
The mindmap of „decoupling“
Social
system
size
of economy, technologynatural resourceswastes and emissionshuman prosperityhuman quality of lifeDepletion environmentalimpact
decoupling
1Slide9
GDP in $
Income/cap in $
Source: UNEP International
Resource
Panel,
Decoupling
Report 2011
GDP
Trillion (10
12
) international dollars
Income
International dollars cap/yr
Biomass
Construction minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Ores and industrial minerals
Biomass
Construction
minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Ores and industrial minerals
Global material extraction
1900-2005
Global metabolic rates
1900-2005
Material extraction
Billion tons
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).
Metabolic rate
t/cap/yr
2Slide10
Metabolic rates and metabolic phases:global material and energy use per capita
Energy
Materials
Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009
1945
1973
2000
British
USA
Lock-in
BUBBLE
2Slide11
The 1970s
syndrome
in high
income
countries
2Slide12
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 meetingBut can „spontaneous“ decoupling do the job?2Slide13
UNEP, International Resource Panel 2011
IRP: Projections of global resource use to the year 2050
2Slide14
Resource
extraction und resource
use
1950-2010 in
mature
industrial and in emerging economiesAsiaWestern Industrial
Brussels
, Feb.24, 2015
Source: Schaffartzik et al. 2014
2Slide15
USA
China
India
Germany
Brazil
Metabolic
rate
t/
cap
/
yr
R
2
= 0.60
Source: UNEP
Decoupling
Report 2011
.
Sociometabolic
rates
: A log-log-linear
function
of
income
Data
for
the
year
2000
2Slide16
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. 2Slide17
Labour, material and energy productivity0.75 US$/kg
6.51 US$/h0.10 US$/MJ
GDP at 2005 constant prices
Source: Heinz
Schandl
(CSIRO): 2016 Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting2Slide18
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?3Slide19
Raw material prices throughout the 20th century and beyond
Source: McKinsey 2012
International
economic
advisors
start warning about rising resource prices3Slide20
Source:
Giurco
et al, 2010, p.28: based on
Mudd
2010, 2009, 2007
Metal
mines worldwide: Peak everything?3Slide21
ElementEstimated risk of scarcity (years from now)
estimated peak year
estimate
burn-off
Hubbert
dyn. model
pessimisticaverageoptimisticIron214176200202520402080Aluminum478286300203021302230Copper317112020322038
2042
Nickel
2022
2026
2028
Gold
37
37
75
2012
2013
2017
Silver
14
44
30
2028
2034
2040
Platinum
73
163
50
2010
2015
2025
oil
44
100
99
coal
78
174
220
natural gas
64
143
100
uranium
144
140
phosphorus
161
190
230
2025
2040
2100
source: Sverdrup & Ragnarsdottir 2014, pp 270-276
Geologists
project
the
21st
century
as
the
period
in
which
all
key
mining
resources
will
peak
and
decline
3Slide22
Scenarios for assessing resource and climate futuresSource: Heinz Schandl
(2016), Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting
3Slide23
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/215632803Slide24
Brauchen wir materielle Ressourcen für unsere Wohlfahrt? Öffentliche Meinung in Japan ändert sich…
3Slide25
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
HDI
Energy
R
2 =
0,85 – 0,90
source
: Steinberger & Roberts
2010
Per
capita
energy
use
and
Human Development Index (HDI)
Yes, we can!
3Slide26
IRP Assessment Reports using material flow data 2011
2015
2016Slide27
The level of well-being achieved in wealthy industrial countries cannot be generalized globally based on the same system of production and consumption Figure. Per-capita material footprint (MF) by seven world regions, 1990 and 2010, tonnes
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
.
Source: Heinz
Schandl
(2016), Presentation of IRP findings to G 7 meeting3Slide28
Fischer-Kowalski | Davos | 9-2009| 28
Metabolic rates of
the
agrarian
(=historical & developing countries) and the industrial regime (=OECD countries)transition = explosionSource: Social Ecology DB3