Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible?

Abstract

The argument that human society can decouple economic growth—defined as growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—from growth in environmental impacts is appealing. If such decoupling is possible, it means that GDP growth is a sustainable societal goal. Here we show that the decoupling concept can be interpreted using an easily understood model of economic growth and environmental impact. The simple model is compared to historical data and modelled projections to demonstrate that growth in GDP ultimately cannot be decoupled from growth in material and energy use. It is therefore misleading to develop growth-oriented policy around the expectation that decoupling is possible. We also note that GDP is increasingly seen as a poor proxy for societal wellbeing. GDP growth is therefore a questionable societal goal. Society can sustainably improve wellbeing, including the wellbeing of its natural assets, but only by discarding GDP growth as the goal in favor of more comprehensive measures of societal wellbeing.

The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet

“…Moreover, the Hatfield‐Dodds et al (2015) results apply only to the short term. Ward et al () have demonstrated that the same model extrapolated into the longer term shows that material footprint begins to rise again after 2050, approaching the rate of GDP growth. The reason is that resource efficiency improvements eventually approach physical limits, after which growth drives resource use back up.…”

Decoupling: A Key Fantasy of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda

“…Burton, 2015Burton, , 2016bIsenhour, 2016;Isenhour & Feng, 2016;Jackson, 2011;Ward et al, 2016). As noted earlier, there is evidence that absolute decoupling at the global level has not yet occurred for important inflows of energy and matter; only (limited) relative decoupling has been documented thus far (Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2014; Haas, Krausmann, Wiedenhofer, & Heinz, 2015;Sustainable Europe Research Institute, 2013), and even this is questionable given the widespread tendency for environmental damage to 'leak' outside the area of assessment (Isenhour, 2016;Isenhour & Feng, 2016;Ward et al, 2016). The same is true for the decoupling of outflows of waste and emissions, using carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions as a proxy for other outflows (EIA, 2104;Mitchell, 2012;in Rammelt & Crisp, 2014).…”

“…In short, a growth-based economy will always demand growing energy inputs (Ward et al, 2016). As Boulding cautioned long ago, 'In regard to the energy system there is, unfortunately, no escape from the grim Second Law of Thermodynamics ' (1966, p. 6).…”

“…Isenhour (2016) and Isenhour and Feng (2016) offer a detailed critique of the decoupling agenda pursued by the Swedish state in partnership with China. More extensively, Steinberger, Krausmann, Getzner, Schandl, and West (2013), Wiedmann et al (2015), Amate (2014), and Burton (2016b) all highlight a dearth of demonstrable decoupling across a range of societies (both developed and developing), while Ward et al (2016) point to the fundamental impossibility of decoupling on an aggregate global scale.…”

Unsustainability and the Architecture of Efficiency

“…However, closer scrutiny has found that this too is not a bottomless well. 8 What is more, indications are that even replacing fossil fuels with renewables is not a viable option for maintaining current levels of consumption. 9 It seems we must instead nd solutions that involve reductions in our collective energy use.…”