Growth and sustainability: When can enough be enough? Dr Julia K. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

School of Earth & Environment SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Growth and sustainability: When can enough be enough? Dr Julia K. Steinberger * Global Futures :Exploringburningquestions for global society Lancaster Environment Centre, UniversityofLancaster, January 31 st 2014 * A balancing act with guest appearances by Scrooge McDuck, Wiley Coyote & Lego people

Long subtitle of questions  Is sustainable growth a contradiction in terms or is it the only realistic pathway? Could it be neither or both of these?  Is economic growth really incompatible with decreasing carbon emissions and environmental burdens?  Are we driving growth, or is it driving us?  What does questioning growth imply for modern societies and mainstream economics?  When can enough be enough; for people, organisations and nations? 2

Evidence-based decision making David Shrigley 3

Outline 1. Trends and limits – a reality check • Discussion 2. Couplingand decoupling • Discussion 3. Energy and carbon for human development • Discussion 4

Environmental limits: carbon emissions 397 ppm in 12.2013 387 ppm in 2009 380 ppm in 2005 330 ppm in 1974 Homo Source: T . Stocker 2005 Agriculture Sapiens (Can extend graph to 850'000, T . Stocker 2006) begins appears 5

Growth is very steady 6

Growth in emissions, but also …. Economy Population BrickTestament.com Resource use Human Well-Being Oil 7

Resource requirements of people; Resource requirements of the economy. Oil 8

International evidence in 2000 (thousand tons) Biomass People need biomass to live Economies need fossil fuels to grow (thousand tons) Fossil fuels Population (1000 persons) GDP (billion $) Steinberger et al 2010 9

Global trends in material use , population and economy, 1900-2005 30 Population GDP Biomass 1 = 0 0 9 Fossiland mineral materials 1 d e 20 x e d Mineral materials & Fossil fuels in C M GDP D d n a P D ,G n io 10 t la u p Biomass o P Population Source: 0 0 5 0 5 0 Krausmann etal.2009 0 2 5 7 0 9 9 9 9 0 1 1 1 1 2

Global distribution of materials: Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients Gini coefficients Equal distribution: 0 Most unequal distribution: 1 Biomass: 0.29 Total materials: 0.35 Construction minerals: 0.38 Fossil fuels: 0.58 Ores/industrial minerals: 0.60 11 Steinberger,Krausmann & Eisenmenger,2010

Some conclusions • People are not the same as the economy: have different physical requirements; • Replacing fossil fuels with biofuels will have catastrophic implicationsfor basic survival of poorest populationsin terms of food supply and access; • Physical limits of environment means that everything comes into question and everything is linked,includingfood and diet choices. • When can enough be enough? • Alreadyfar too much for some, too little for manyothers. 12

Is it possible to decouple the economy from resource use? Part 1: The great “race” between economic growth and technology. 13

Allocation: IPAT Debate in late 1960s, early 1970s: Who (or what) is to blame for environmentalproblems? • Paul Ehrlich: Population Barry Commoner: Rich populations more than poor, “technology” can help or hinder. Result: IPAT identity (Commoner, Ehrlich, Holdren, 1972)    Impact Population Affluence Technology     GDP CO        2 CO Population   2     capita GDP Technology = “Carbon intensity of the economy:” kg carbon per $ GDP 14

Society as an IPAT machine CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 Human Society x x = – + – + – + Technology Population Affluence Growing Only hope? Growing 15

IPAT factors 1970 value = 100% Carbon emissions: 1970 = 4.1 Gigatonnes 200 Population: 1970 = 3.7 billion people Affluence: 1970 = 3'670 $/capita Technology: 1970 = 0.30 kg carbon per $ Annual growth rates 150 1950- 1970- 2000- 1970 2000 2007 3.1%  Carbon 4.7% 1.9% 1.2%  100 Population 1.9% 1.7% 3.2%  Affluence 2.9% 1.7% -1.2%  T echnology -0.1% -1.5% 50 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 16

Carbon intensities required to meet 450 ppm target 7% 9% 11% 17 Jackson 2009

Productivity ($ per ton CO 2 ) and decarbonisation: international Population 6% 21 countries 43% Carbon productivity % annual growth 48% Growth in productivity Absolute 82 countries decarbonisation 3 countries GDP Relative 14% decarbonisation 21% Growth in GDP 61 countries No decoupling at all 65% GDP % annual growth 18

Can efficiency save economic growth? Part 2: Efficiency as an engine of growth. – + – + Efficiency Affluence 19

Mainstream economic growth theories Production function approach • Labour L and capital K as main factors But this does explain economic growth in 20 th Century • ‘Solow residual’ A :gap between real economicgrowth and output estimated from changes in capital and labour alone • “Measure of our ignorance”of technological progress Endogenous growth theories • Incorporate investment in research and/or probabilisticoccurrence of innovation, but do not measure technical progress itself Energy & efficiency are missing • Need to measure conversion of energy (exergy) inputs into useful work • Need to measure qualityofenergy (exergy) inputs

The energy chain: resource and efficiency 1. Primary energy (exergy) as a factor of production • Problem: primary energy is a raw material – we’re still missing technology! • Result: economic growth is STILL higher than expected! 2. Useful work (useful exergy) as a factor of production: • Useful energy tells us not only how much energy we’re using, but what we really get out of it: includes technology! • Result: can model USA economic growth over 100 years (Ayres & Warr 2005, 2009).

Useful energy explains USA economic growth over 100 years Useful energy Ayres et al 2007 22

2. 1. 3. 4. Vicious or virtuous cycle?

Feedback loops driving growth and energy use  Ayres & Warr feedback between efficiency, energy useand economic growth  “Treadmillof production:”efficiency lowers prices, need more consumptionto maintainemployment. Jackson 2009 24

Conclusion from Ayres et al work Economic growth both drives and benefits from progress in energy efficiency . • Energy efficiency leads to economicgrowth. Troublingquestions: • Can efficiency reallylead to decreases or decoupling, ifit drives growth? • How can we deal with climate change without challengingthe imperative for economic growth? 25

The problem(s) with efficiency  Present development based on fixed pattern of resource use.  Technicallyextremely challengingto $ increase efficiency faster than economy.  Normally,efficiency drives economic growth, not savings or reductions.  Economic growth should be limited by efficiency growth  Physical limits on economic growth  Very unpopular 26

Can efficiency save economic development? human Part 4: Measuring the carbon efficiency of human development CO 2 27

Sufficiency: how much CO 2 is necessary for human development? 28

Links between energy & human development Wilkinson et al. 2007 29

Human Development vs. Carbon Human Development Index High human development 2005 requires less and less carbon! 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 Carbon emissions (tC/cap) Steinberger & Roberts 2010 30

Carbon “thresholds” for sufficiency 0.6 tC/cap C&C 2050 level 31 Steinberger & Roberts 2010

Global carbon “thresholds” 5.5GtC C&C 2050 level 32 Steinberger & Roberts 2010

Sufficiency and carbon emissions: Taking trade into account Carbon importer Carbon exporter Life expectancy (years) Steinberger, Roberts , Peters & Baiocchi 2012 Carbon neutral R 2 = 0.65 CO2 emissions: Corrected for trade: R 2 = 0.72 Carbon emissions (tonnes carbon per capita) 33

Income and carbon emissions: Taking trade into account Carbon importer Carbon exporter Steinberger, Roberts , Peters & Baiocchi 2012 GDP ($ per capita) Carbon neutral R 2 = 0.82 CO2 emissions: Corrected for trade: R 2 = 0.90 Carbon emissions (tonnes carbon per capita) 34

All together now: Life expectancy, income and trade-corrected carbon $/cap Steinberger, Roberts , Peters & Baiocchi 2012 35

Who is sustainable? Steinberger,Roberts , Peters & Baiocchi 2012 UK China Brazil Life expectancy (years) USA 0.6tC/cap C&C 2050 level India Nigeria Trade-correctedcarbonemissions (tonnes carbon per capita) 36

But is it possible for countries to move to sustainable “Goldemberg Corner”? Conduct cluster analysis on drivers of carbon emissions: clusters represent groups of countries with similar underlyingconditions. Driver Trade-corrected CO 2 /cap Income (GDP/cap) XXXX Cluster Description Climate XXX 1 (20 countries) Core: wealthy consumers Export share of GDP XX 2 (18 countries) Semi-periphery: Transitioning producers Population growth X 3 (29 countries) Periphery 1: moderate income Urbanization - and closed economy Population density - 4 (9 countries) Periphery 2: moderate income and open economy 5 (10 countries) Periphery 3: least developed Lamb et al 2014 37