The Myth of Decoupling and Green Economic Growth

The Climate Crisis

Following a special report written by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2018, it was revealed that “human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels” (IPCC, 2018). We are already witnessing the consequences of such an exponential rise in global temperatures, with events – such as extreme weather patterns, diminishing artic sea ice and rising sea levels – occurring more frequently than ever before.

If we, as a global community, continue to follow these current trends, the IPCC report predicts that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052. At 1.5°C, coral reefs will decline by 70-90%, and the Arctic Ocean would be free of sea ice in the summer at least once per century. Conversely, an increase to 2°C – just 0.5°C higher – would see the extinction of 99% of coral reefs, and the Arctic Ocean would be free of ice in the summer at least once per decade. For reference, coral reefs are the “heart and lungs” for life on earth, producing half of the world’s oxygen, and absorbing up to 30% of man-made carbon dioxide (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2010). Without such crucial elements of the planet’s eco-system, ecological collapse is a guarantee.

As of right now, emissions are still rising and global warming is predicted to reach 3.5°C by the end of the century (IPCC, 2014). Therefore, to maintain temperatures at a level below the 1.5°C threshold, carbon pollution must be cut by 45% by 2030, and reach zero by 2050.

It is without a doubt the greatest threat to existence ever faced by human beings, yet the lives of those who perpetuate such a system have not been curtailed. According to research conducted by Oxfam, the average emissions of someone living in the richest 10% is more than 60 times that of someone living in the poorest 10% (Oxfam, 2015).

For context, a net-worth of $93,107 U.S is sufficient to ensure that you are richer than 90% of the world’s population – net-worth is defined here as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts” (Credit Suisse, 2018). In the U.S. alone, 102 million people fall within this category (31% of the population).

The Myth of ‘Decoupling’

To reduce the material footprint of countries, in an effort to prevent crossing the 1.5°C warming limit, governments and financial institutions have looked to the theory of ‘decoupling’. Decoupling is a process that looks to reduce the number of resources being used, whilst maintaining constant gross domestic product (GDP) growth which, within the current form of capitalist governance, is key to sustaining prosperity.

For example, due to “economic structural change, technological advancement and enforcement of environmental regulations” – such as the Climate Change Act of 2008 – the U.K. claims that it has shown evidence of decoupling between 1985 and 2016, as the “GDP per head grew by 70.7%, whilst CO2 emissions fell by 34.2%” (ONS, 2019). Governments point to this evidence to support the maintenance of the free-market consumerist economy, as it seemingly provides evidence that GDP can continue to grow whilst the carbon footprint of the nation is reduced.

However, a recent paper published by the BIOS Research Institute in Finland – a team which has previously advised the UN on emerging biophysical limits to endless economic growth – has reviewed 179 scientific studies on decoupling between 1990-2019 and found that that there is “no evidence” that meaningful decoupling has ever occurred at either a regional or global level (Váden et al., 2020a).

Despite evidence presented by the U.K. government suggesting that decoupling has occurred over the last 30 years, the report found that the reduction in resource use in the U.K. has resulted in a deepening of resource use elsewhere.

Over the past 50 years, manufacturing output in European countries has generally declined, as most have transitioned to becoming predominantly financial and service-based economies. Subsequently, since the 1970s, the U.K. has gone from 6^th in the world in manufacturing output, to reaching a low of  11^th in 2013 (West and Lansang, 2018). Conversely, China has gone from 5^th in the 1970s, to 1^st since 2010, overtaking the United States with the largest manufacturing output in the world.

As a consequence, annual CO2 emissions in countries that seek to meet the demands of the global consumerist market, such as China, have significantly increased. Over a 20-year-period, China’s annual CO2 emissions have increased from 3.41 billion tonnes in 1997, to 9.84 billion tonnes in 2017.

Essentially, the dependency of free-market capitalism on increasing levels of GDP has resulted in the perpetuation of an environmentally toxic system of governance, which places production, consumption and wealth above sustainability and human survival.

Therefore, whilst wealthier and more technologically advanced nations are able to improve efficiencies in resource use within their own country, it doesn’t mean that the material footprint is being reduced globally.

In response to the findings, Dr Nafeez Ahmed, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Systems, has stated that “we need to find ways to mobilise both technology and fundamental restructuring of our economies and production relations to transition to new forms of prosperity.” (Ahmed, 2020). Furthermore, Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist at the London School of Economics, has claimed that “green growth is likely to be a misguided objective, and that policymakers need to look toward alternative strategies” (Hickel, 2019).

Conclusion

As of this article being published, global temperatures are set to rise to 1.2-1.3°C over the next five years – only 0.2°C below the predicted tipping point – yet nothing of any significance is being done by the strongest nations on earth (Kato, 2019).

For example, in response to the recent Covid-19 pandemic, approximately $509 billion has been granted by governments around the world to prop up the fossil fuel economy, with “no conditions to ensure they reduce their carbon output” (Harvey, 2020). In comparison, only $12.3 billion has been granted to low-carbon industries, such as renewable energy.

Simply put, in the pursuit of continuous economic growth, our governments are refusing to accept the catastrophe approaching on the horizon. They are upholding and perpetuating an economic system that is no longer ecologically fit for purpose, and basing their evidence on the theory of decoupling which has shown “no evidence” of ever occurring.

If the global community does not drastically mobilise within the next decade, we are likely to set off a devastating chain of events, the likes of which will be unparalleled to any conflict seen before in human history; “Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success, it is failure” (Ardern, 2019).

Bibliography

Ahmed (2020). “Green economic growth is an article of ‘faith’ and devoid of scientific evidence”. Medium. Available from: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/green-economic-growth-is-an-article-of-faith-devoid-of-scientific-evidence-5e63c4c0bb5e [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Ardern, J (2019). “Jacinda Ardern Says Economic Growth Is Pointless If People Aren’t Thriving”. Global Citizen. Available from: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/jacinda-ardern-goalkeepers-unga-2019/ [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Credit Suisse (2018). Global Wealth Report 2018. Available from: https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/publications/research-institute/global-wealth-report-2018-en.pdf [Accessed 24^th July, 2020].

Hickel and Kallis (2019). “Is Green Growth Possible?”. New Political Economy. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332500379_Is_Green_Growth_Possible [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Hoegh-Guldberg, O (2010). “Dangerous Shift in Ocean Ecosystem Function?”. The ISME Journal. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2010107 [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

IPCC (2018). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Kato, I (2019). “Drastic actions urged by UN agency as global average temperature rises higher”. Reuters. Available from:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-temperatures-wmo-1.5293624#:~:text=The%20global%20average%20temperature%20is,adopted%20in%20a%20global%20treaty. [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

ONS (2019). The decoupling of economic growth from carbon emissions: UK Evidence. Available from:https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence#:~:text=The%20UK%20has%20shown%20evidence,CO2%20emissions%20fell%20by%2034.2%25.&text=Under%20this%20Act%2C%20the%20UK,80%25%20compared%20with%201990%20levels. [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Oxfam (2015). Extreme Carbon Inequality: Why the Paris climate deal must put the poorest, lowest emitting and most vulnerable people first. Available from: https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

West and Lansang (2018). “Global manufacturing scorecard: How the US compares to 18 other nations”. Brookings. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/ [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Váden et al. (2020a). “Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature”. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 112, pp.236-244. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120304342?dgcid=coauthor [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].

Váden et al. (2020b). “Raising the bar: on the type, size and timeline of ‘successful’ decoupling.” Environmental Politics. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2020.1783951 [Accessed 10^th August, 2020].