Presentation to the UN workshop The Challenge of Sustainability
The world economy’s use of natural
resources: history, dynamics, drivers and
future perspectives
Marina Fischer-Kowalski
Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna
Alpen Adria University
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Six messages I wish to get across
1. Centennial resource use explosion
2. Drivers of resource use: population, income, development
and, as a constraint, population density
3. sociometabolic regimes and transitions between them inform
future scenarios of resource use
4. Relative decoupling is business as usual and drives growth;
absolute decoupling is rare
5. Reference point for resource use: human wellbeing rather
than income generation
6. Need to understand complex system dynamics, dispose of
some illusions and utilize windows of opportunity in space
and time
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
2
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 1: Centennial resource use explosion
The sociometabolic scale of the world economy has been increasing
by one order of magnitude during the last century:
• Materials use: From 7 billion tons to over 60 bio t (extraction of
primary materials annually).
• Energy use: From 44 EJ primary energy to 480 EJ (TPES,
commercial energy only).
• Land use: from 25 mio km2 cropland to 50 mio km2
Definition: sociometabolic scale is the size of the overall annual material or
primary energy input of a socio-economic system, measured according to
established standards of MEFA analysis. For land use, no standard measure of scale is defined.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
3
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
sociometabolic scale:
Global commercial energy supply 1900-2005
500
Hydro/Nuclear/Geoth.
Natural Gas
Oil
400
Coal
Biofuels
[EJ]
300
200
100
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
1930
1925
1920
1915
1910
1905
1900
-
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
4
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
Metabolic scale:
Global materials use 1900 to 2005
60
Construction minerals
Ores and industrial minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Biomass
[billion tons]
40
20
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
1930
1925
1920
1915
1910
1905
1900
0
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
5
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
Composition of Global materials use
1900 to 2005: mineralization
100%
80%
60%
40%
Construction minerals
20%
Ores and industrial minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Biomass
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
1930
1925
1920
1915
1910
1905
1900
0%
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
6
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
Global land-use change 1700-2000
Biome 300 data
140
Deserts and Ice
120
Shrublands
[Mio. km²]
100
Natural grasslands &
tundra
80
Boreal Forests
60
Temperated Forests
40
Tropical Forests
20
Marginal cropland/grazing
Intensive cropland
-
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
1970
1990
1990
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Klein Goldewijk 2001
7
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 2: Drivers of resource use: population, income,
development and, as a constraint, population density
•
Population numbers
•
Rising income (GDP)
•
“Development” in the sense of transition from an
agrarian to the industrial regime.
•
Human settlement patterns: higher population
density allows lower resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
8
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Global sociometabolic rates doubled
Population is the strongest driver of resource use. On top of it,
resource use per human inhabitant of the earth has been more than
doubling during the 20th century, and is accelerating since.
materials use per capita: was about 4,6 tons by the beginning and
is by 8 tons at the end of the century;
global energy use per capita: was about 30 Gigajoule. By the end
of the century, it was 75 Gigajoule.
Definition: Metabolic rate is the metabolic scale of a socio-economic system divided by its
population number = annual material / energy use per capita.
It represents the biophysical burden associated to an average individual.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
9
drivers
resource use
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
sociometabolic rates:
Transitions between stable levels across 20th century
10,0
100,0
TPES/cap (primary yaxis)
DMC/cap (secondary yaxis)
80,0
8,0
60,0
6,0
40,0
4,0
DMC [t/cap/yr]
TPES [GJ/cap/yr]
Materials
Energy
2,0
20,0
-
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
-
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
10
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 2: Drivers of resource use: population, income,
development and, as a constraint, population density
•
Population numbers
•
Rising income (GDP)
•
“Development” in the sense of transition from an
agrarian to the industrial regime.
•
Human settlement patterns: higher population
density allows lower resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
11
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Metabolic rate (materials) and income: loglinear
relation, no sign of a “Kuznets curve”
R2 = 0.64
N = 175 countries
Year 2000
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
12
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
Global metabolic rates grow slower than income
(„decoupling“)
12
6
Global DMC,
t/cap/yr (left axis)
9
90
6
Global TPES,
GJ/cap/yr (left axis)
4,5
60
3
GDP (const. 2000 $)
TPES
2
GDP (const. 2000 $)
2005
2000
1995
1990
0
1975
0
1970
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
0
1960
-
1965
DMC
1,5
1960
3
Global GDP,
$/cap*yr (right axis)
30
1985
Global GDP,
$/cap*yr (right axis)
1980
6
4
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009
13
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 2: Drivers of resource use: population, income,
development and, as a constraint, population density
•
Population numbers
•
Rising income (GDP)
•
“Development” in the sense of transition from an
agrarian to the industrial regime.
•
Human settlement patterns: higher population
density allows lower resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
14
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
If we wish to link resource use to „development“,
we need a wider energy concept
• The key energy base for agrarian societies is biomass for
nutrition of humans and animals from land (solar based).
• To understand the development from the agrarian to the
industrial regime, we need to account for the energetic base
of nutrition in addition to the modern concept of commercial
primary energy (TPES)
• In analogue to system wide material flows, the following
figures account for system wide (primary) energy flows.
• They show „development“ to be a transition in energy
source from solar (biomass) to fossil fuels.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
See Haberl 2001
15
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
the agrarian - industrial transition: from
biomass to fossil fuels in the UK, 1700-2000
Share of energy
sources in
primary energy
consumption
(% DEC)
United Kingdom
100
biomass
90
coal
80
70
60
Biomass
50
Oil / gas
/ nuc
40
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
30
20
10
0
1700
1725
1750
1775
1800
1830
1850
1875
1900
1925
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
16
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
the energy transition 1700-2000 - latecomers
UK
Austria
Austria
United Kingdom
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
Biomass
50
Biomass
Coal
50
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1700
1725
1750
1775
1800
1830
1850
1875
1900
1925
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
1700
1725
1750
1775
1800
1830
1850
1875
1900
1925
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Japan
100
Japan
90
Share of energy
sources in primary
energy consumption
(% DEC)
80
70
60
Biomass
50
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
40
30
20
10
0
1700
1725
1750
1775
1800
1830
1850
1875
1900
1925
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
17
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
The Great Transformation: Reduction of agricultural
population, and gain in income 1600-2000
GDP per capita [1990US$]
Share of agricultural population
100%
25.000
80%
20.000
United Kingdom
Austria
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
Japan
1600
2000
1950
0
1900
0%
1850
5.000
1800
20%
1750
10.000
1700
40%
1650
15.000
1600
60%
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
18
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Metabolic rates of the agrarian and industrial regime
transition = explosion
Energy use (DEC) per capita
Material use (DMC) per capita
Population density
Agricultural population
Energy use (DEC) per area
Material use (DMC) per area
Biomass (share of DEC)
[GJ/cap]
[t/cap]
[cap/km²]
[%]
[GJ/ha]
[t/ha]
[%]
Agrarian
40-70
3-6
<40
>80%
<30
<2
>95
Industrial
150-400
15-25
< 400
<10%
< 600
< 50
10-30
Factor
3-5
3-5
3-10
0.1
10-30
10-30
0.1-0.3
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Krausmann et al. 2008
19
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 2: Drivers of resource use: population, income,
development and, as a constraint, population density
•
Population numbers
•
Rising income (GDP)
•
“Development” in the sense of transition from an
agrarian to the industrial regime.
•
Human settlement patterns: population density as
constraint for resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
20
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Resource consumption per capita
by development status and population density
25
Construction minerals
Ores and industrial minerals
20
Fossil fuels
15
Share of world
population
10
Biomass
13%
6%
62%
6%
5
High density
Low density
industrial
industrial
industrial
High density
Low density
developing
developing
developing (NW)
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
21
Metab.rates: DMC t/cap in yr 2000
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Resumé: Drivers of resource consumption, good
news and bad news
• Resource consumption is driven by population growth,
development (metabolic regime transition), rising income,
and constrained by population density
• Population density works as a constraint because of lack of
space for extended extraction processes (such as mining)
and waste deposition, and because pollution from resource
extraction and use directly harms people
• But also: high density living allows material well being at
much lower energy and material cost. This is mainly due to
better capacity utilization of infrastructure, if well designed.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
22
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 3: sociometabolic regimes and
transitions in the 20th Century
1. Coal based regime of industrialization (coal, steam
engine, railways, dominated by GB)
phasing out ~ 1930
2. Oil based regime (oil, cars, electricity, Fordism,
American Way of Life, US dominated)
phasing out ~ 1973
3. Next regime (solar based? knowledge? information?)
not yet phasing in, latency situation
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
23
transitions
drivers
resource use
decoupling
human wellbeing
Phases of global resource use dynamics
100,0
10,0
TPES/cap (primary yaxis)
80,0
2000
DMC/cap (secondary yaxis)
8,0
60,0
6,0
1973
40,0
4,0
DMC [t/cap/yr]
TPES [GJ/cap/yr]
Materials
Energy
20,0
2,0
1930
coal based
oil based
Latency
-
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
-
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009
24
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
material metabolic rates 1935 – 2005 not synchronized:
very different depending on development status
EU15
USA
JAPAN
EU - 15
30
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
2005
2000
1995
1990
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
0
1965
0
1960
0
1955
10
1950
10
1945
1973
20
1985
1973
10
1940
INDIA
30
20
India
1980
BRAZIL
1945
1973
1935
1945
1935
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
Brazil
30
20
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
World
Construction min.
Ind. min. & ores
Fossil fuels
biomass
1940
30
1975
0
1970
0
1965
0
1960
10
1955
10
1950
10
1945
20
1940
20
1935
20
WORLD
Japan
30
1940
30
1935
USA
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Sources: USA: Gierlinger 2009, EU-15: Eurostat Database, Japan: Japan Ministry of the Enivronment 2007,
Brazil: Mayer 2009, India: Lanz 2009, World: Krausmann et. al. 2009
25
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Notable trends in material resource use
• Apparently, since the first oil crisis in 1973, all major
industrial countries have stabilized their resource use /
capita (metabolic rates), although at different levels
• Japan has managed to lower its material use rates in the
past 15 years through well designed policies by ~30%
• Many developing countries have started increasing their
metabolic rates; some very large countries (China, India)
have only recently gained momentum, some countries (esp.
in Africa) have not yet started
• Despite an expected slowdown in population growth, these
trends lead to an explosive rise in global resource demand
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
26
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Three forced future scenarios of resource use
1.
Freeze and catching up: industrial countries maintain their metabolic
rates of the year 2000, developing countries catch up to same rates
incompatible with IPCC climate protection targets
2.
Moderate contraction & convergence: industrial countries reduce
their metabolic rates by factor 2, developing countries catch up
compatible with moderate IPCC climate protection targets
3.
Tough contraction & convergence: global resource consumption of
the year 2000 remains constant by 2050, industrial and developing
countries settle for identical metabolic rates
compatible with strict IPCC climate protection targets
Built into all scenarios: population (by mean UN projection), development
transitions, population density as a constraint, stable composition by
material groups
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
27
decoupling
transitions
drivers
resource use
human wellbeing
Projections of resource use up to 2050 – three
forced future scenarios
Global metabolic scale (Gt)
Global metabolic rate (t/cap)
18
Observed data
Observed data
Freeze & catching up
Freeze & catching up
Factor 2 & catching up
Freeze global DMC
Factor 2 & catching up
metabolic rate [t/cap/yr]
100
50
Freeze global DMC
12
6
2050
2025
2000
1975
1950
2050
2025
2000
1975
1950
1925
1900
1925
0
0
1900
metabolic scale [Gt]
150
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
28
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Scenario 1: Freeze and catching up
• By 2050, this scenario results in a global metabolic scale of 140 billion
tons annually, and an average global metabolic rate of 16 tons / cap. In
relation to the year 2000, this would imply more than a tripling of annual
global resource extraction, and establish global metabolic rates that
correspond to the present European average. Average per capita carbon
emissions would triple to 3.2 tons/cap and global emissions would more
than quadruple to 28.8 GtC/yr.
• This scenario represents an extremely unsustainable future in terms of
both resource use and emissions, exceeding all possible measures of
environmental limits. Its emissions are higher than the highest scenarios
in the IPCC SRES (Nakicenovic and Swart 2000), but since the IPCC
scenarios have already been outpaced by the evolution since 2000
(Raupach et al. 2007), it might in fact be closer to the real trend.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
29
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Scenario 2: Factor 2 and catching up
• By 2050, this scenario amounts to a global metabolic scale of 70 billion
tons, which means about 40% more annual resource extraction than in
the year 2000. The average global metabolic rate would stay roughly the
same as in 2000, at 8 tons / cap. The average CO2 emissions per capita
would increase by almost 50% to 1.6 tons per capita, and global
emissions would more than double to 14.4 GtC.
• Taken as a whole, this would be a scenario of friendly moderation: while
overall constraints (e.g. food supply) are not transgressed in a severe
way beyond what they are now, developing countries have the chance
for a rising share in global resources, and for some absolute increase in
resource use, while industrial countries have to cut on their
overconsumption. Its carbon emissions correspond to the middle of the
range of IPCC SRES climate scenarios.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
30
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
Scenario 3: Freeze global material use
• By 2050, this scenario amounts to a global metabolic scale of 50 billion
tons (the same as in the year 2000) and allows for an average global
metabolic rate of only 6 tons /cap (equal, for example, to that of India in
the year 2000). The average per capita carbon emissions would be
reduced by roughly 40% to 0.75 tons/cap – global emissions obviously
would remain constant at the 2000 level of 6.7 GtC/yr.
• Taken as a whole, this would be a scenario of tough restraint. Even in
this scenario the global ecological footprint of the human population on
earth would exceed global biocapacity (unless substantial efficiency
gains and reductions in carbon emissions would make it drop), but the
pressure on the environment, despite a larger world population, would
be roughly the same as it is now. The carbon emissions correspond
approximately to the lowest range of scenario B1 of the IPCC SRES,
but are still 20% above the roughly 5.5 GtC/yr advocated by the Global
Commons Institute for contraction and convergence in emissions (GCI
2003).
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
31
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
decoupling
human wellbeing
Message 4:
Relative decoupling is business as usual and drives growth;
absolute decoupling happens rarely and so far only at low rates
of economic growth
decoupling
human wellbeing
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
32
resource use
transitions
drivers
decoupling
decoupling
human wellbeing
European Union: material de-growth (=absolute
decoupling) only at low economic growth rates
EU
15
EU
27
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Source: Social Ecology DB; averages 2000-2005
33
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human
human wellbeing
wellbeing
Message 5:
a new transition, to a sustainable industrial metabolism,
should be directed at human wellbeing!
And
YES, WE CAN!
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
34
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human
human wellbeing
wellbeing
Life expectancy at birth in relation to national income: In
1960, for same life expectancy less than half the income is
required than in 1930!
• Evtl. preston folie einfügen!
Source: Preston 1975 (2008)
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
35
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human
human wellbeing
wellbeing
Human development vs. Carbon emissions
HDI
R2 = 0,75 – 0,85
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2009
36
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
Carbon emissions
resource use
drivers
transitions
decoupling
human wellbeing
References
Samuel H. Preston (1975). The changing relation between mortality and level of
economic development. Reprinted in: Int.J.Epidemiol. 36 (3):484-490, 2007.
Julia K. Steinberger and J. Timmons Roberts. Decoupling energy and carbon from
human needs. Ecological Economics: submitted, 2010.
UNEP Decoupling report: Decoupling and Sustainable Resource Management:
Scoping the challenges. Lead authors M.Swilling & M.Fischer-Kowalski, to be
issued Paris 2010
Fridolin Krausmann, Simone Gingrich, Nina Eisenmenger, Karl-Heinz Erb, Helmut
Haberl, and Marina Fischer-Kowalski. Growth in global materials use, GDP and
population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics 68 (10):2696-2705,
2009.
Klein Goldewijk, K. 2001. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15 (2):417-433
Fridolin Krausmann, Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Heinz Schandl, and Nina
Eisenmenger. The global socio-metabolic transition: past and present metabolic
profiles and their future trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (5/6):637656, 2008.
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
37