Eco-economic decoupling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In economic and environmental fields, decoupling refers to an economy that would be able to grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure. In many economies, increasing production (GDP) currently raises pressure on the environment. An economy that would be able to sustain economic growth while reducing the amount of resources such as water or fossil fuels used and delink environmental deterioration at the same time would be said to be decoupled.[1] Environmental pressure is often measured using emissions of pollutants, and decoupling is often measured by the emission intensity of economic output.[2] Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP growth from both production- and, to a lesser extent, consumption-based CO2 emissions.[3]

In 2002, the OECD defined the term as follows:

the term 'decoupling' refers to breaking the link between "environmental bads" and "economic goods." It explains this as having rates of increasing wealth greater than the rates of increasing impacts.[4]

Importance of the issue of decoupling[edit]

In 2011, the International Resource Panel, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that by 2050, the human race could use up 140 billion tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and biomass per year – three times its current appetite – unless nations can start decoupling economic growth rates from the rate of natural resource consumption.[5] It noted that developed country citizens consume an average of 16 tons of those four key resources per capita (ranging up to 40 or more tons per person in some developed countries). By comparison, the average person in India today consumes four tons per year.

The OECD 2019 Report "Environment at a Glance Indicators – Climate change" points out that the issue of diminishing GHG emissions while maintaining GDP growth is a major challenge for the forthcoming years.[6]


Policies have been proposed for creating the conditions that enable widespread investments in resource productivity. According to Mark Patton a global leading expert, Such potential policies include the raising of resource prices in line with increases in energy or resource productivity, a shift in revenue-raising onto resource prices through resource taxation at source or in relation to product imports, with recycling of revenues back to the economy, ...[7]


Several technologies have been described in the Decoupling 2 report, including:

  • Technologies to save energy (technologies directly reducing fossil fuel consumption, saving electricity in industry, reducing fossil-fuel demand in transportation, ...)
  • Technologies saving metals and minerals (technologies reducing metal use, saving materials from waste streams, ...)
  • Technologies saving freshwater and biotic resources (technologies saving freshwater extraction , protecting soil fertility, saving biotic resources, ...)[8]


In 2014, the same International Resource Panel published a second report, "Decoupling 2",[8] which "highlights existing technological possibilities and opportunities for both developing and developed countries to accelerate decoupling and reap the environmental and economic benefits of increased resource productivity." The lead coordinating author of this report was Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker.

In 2016, the International Resource Panel published a report indicating that "global material productivity has declined since about the year 2000 and the global economy now needs more materials per unit of GDP than it did at the turn of the century" as a result of shifts in production from high-income to middle-income countries.[9] That is to say, the growth of material flows has been stronger than the growth of gross domestic product.[9] This is the opposite of decoupling, a situation that some people call overcoupling.


Relative and absolute decoupling[edit]

Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth, stresses the importance of differentiating between relative and absolute decoupling:

  • Relative decoupling refers to a decline in the ecological intensity per unit of economic output. In this situation, resource impacts decline relative to the GDP, which could itself still be rising.[10]
  • Absolute decoupling refers to a situation in which resource impacts decline in absolute terms. Resource efficiencies must increase at least as fast as economic output does and must continue to improve as the economy grows, if absolute decoupling is to occur.[10]

Jackson points out that an economy can correctly claim that it has relatively decoupled its economy in terms of energy inputs per unit of GDP. However, in this situation, total environmental impacts would still be increasing, albeit at a slower pace of growth than in GDP.[10]

Jackson uses this distinction to caution against technology-optimists who use the term decoupling as an "escape route from the dilemma of growth."[10] He points out that "there is quite a lot of evidence to support the existence of [relative decoupling]" in global economies, however "evidence for [absolute decoupling] is harder to find."[10]

Similarly, ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly stated in 1991:[11]

It is true that "In 1969 a dollar's worth of GNP was produced with one-half the materials used to produce a dollar's worth of GNP in 1900, in constant dollars." Nevertheless, over the same period total materials by consumption increased by 400 percent.

Relative and absolute decoupling[12]
Relative decoupling Absolute decoupling
Description Decline in the resource intensity per unit of economic output Resource use decline in absolute terms while economic output rise
Example Increased carbon efficiency (but lower than economic growth) Increased carbon efficiency higher than economic growth
Link with I = PAT Carbon intensity decline (but ≤ population + income growths) Carbon intensity decline > (population growth + income growth)
Evidence for carbon emissions Yes: 34% decrease between 1965 and 2015 (CO
No: 300% increase between 1965 and 2015 (absolute CO
Evidence for resource extraction No: resource use increases more than GDP (1990-2015) No: resource use increases overall (1990-2015)

Between 1990 and 2015, the carbon intensity per $GDP declined of 0.6 percent per year (relative decoupling), but the population grew of 1.3 percent per year and the income per capita also grew of 1.3 percent per year.[12] That is to say, the carbon emissions grew of 1.3 + 1.3 − 0.6 = 2 percent per year, leading to a 62% increase in 25 years (the data reflect no absolute decoupling).[12] According to Tim Jackson:[12]

There is no simple formula that leads from the efficiency of the market to the meeting of ecological targets. Simplistic assumptions that capitalism's propensity for efficiency will allow us to stabilise the climate are nothing short of delusional. [...] The analysis in this chapter suggests that it is entirely fanciful to suppose that 'deep' emission and resource cuts can be achieved without confronting the structure of market economies.

On economic growth and environmental degradation, Donella Meadows wrote:[13]

Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don't count the costs – among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction, and so on – the whole list of problems that we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, very different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth. The world's leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they're pushing it with all their might in the wrong direction.

Resource and impact decoupling[edit]

Resource decoupling refers to reducing the rate of resource use per unit of economic activity. The "dematerialization" is based on using less material, energy, water and land resources for the same economic input. Impact decoupling required increasing economic output while reducing negative environmental impacts. These impacts arise from the extraction of resources.[14]

Lack of evidence for decoupling[edit]

There is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of an eco-economic decoupling near the scale needed to avoid environmental degradation, and it is unlikely to happen in the future. Environmental pressures can only be reduced by rethinking green growth policies, where a sufficiency approach complements greater efficiency.[15][16]

According to scientist and author Vaclav Smil, "Without a biosphere in a good shape, there is no life on the planet. It’s very simple. That’s all you need to know. The economists will tell you we can decouple growth from material consumption, but that is total nonsense. The options are quite clear from the historical evidence. If you don’t manage decline, then you succumb to it and you are gone. The best hope is that you find some way to manage it."[17]

In 2020, a meta-analysis of 180 scientific studies notes that there is "No evidence of the kind of decoupling needed for ecological sustainability" and that "in the absence of robust evidence, the goal of decoupling rests partly on faith".[18]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth, Summary for policymakers, Foreword
  2. ^ Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth, Summary for policymakers
  3. ^ Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (June 2020). "A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326.
  4. ^ OECD 2002 “Indicators to Measure Decoupling of Environmental Pressure from Economic Growth” (excerpt)
  5. ^ Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts of economic growth. International Resource Panel report, 2011
  6. ^ Environment at a Glance Indicators – Climate change OECD 2020
  7. ^ Let’s Get Economic/Resource Decoupling Done
  8. ^ a b Decoupling 2: technologies, opportunities and policy options A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. von Weizsäcker, E.U., de Larderel, J, Hargroves, K., Hudson, C., Smith, M., Rodrigues, M., 2014
  9. ^ a b "Global material flows and resource productivity. An assessment study of the UNEP International Resource Panel", United Nations Environment Programme, 2016 (page visited on 12 October 2018).
  10. ^ a b c d e Jackson, Tim (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (1 ed.). London: Earthscan. pp. 67–71. ISBN 9781844078943.
  11. ^ Daly, Herman E. (1991). Steady-state economics: Second edition with new essays. Island Press. p. 118. ISBN 9781597268721.
  12. ^ a b c d Jackson, Tim (2017) [2009]. "The myth of decoupling". Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow (2 ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 84–102. ISBN 9781138935419.
  13. ^ Donella Meadows, edited by Diana Wright, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008, page 146 (ISBN 9781603580557).
  14. ^ Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth, Summary for policymakers, page 16
  15. ^ Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability, 2019 (page visited on 17 March 2020)
  16. ^ Ward, James; Chiveralls, Keri; Fioramonti, Lorenzo; Sutton, Paul; Costanza, Robert. "The decoupling delusion: rethinking growth and sustainability". The Conversation. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  17. ^ "Vaclav Smil: 'Growth must end. Our economist friends don't seem to realise that'". The Guardian. 21 September 2019. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  18. ^ T. Vadén, V. Lähde, A. Majava, P. Järvensivu, T. Toivanen, E. Hakala and J. T. Eronen, "Decoupling for ecological sustainability: a categorisation and review of research literature", Environmental Science & Policy, volume 112, 2020, pages 236-244.

External links[edit]