View
218
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
The world economy’s use of natural resources: history, dynamics, drivers and
future perspectives
Marina Fischer-Kowalski
Institute of Social Ecology, ViennaAlpen Adria University
Presentation to the UN workshop The Challenge of Sustainability
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
2
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
3
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Message 1: Centennial resource use explosion
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.
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
resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
4
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
sociometabolic scale:Global commercial energy supply 1900-2005
-
100
200
300
400
500
19
00
19
05
19
10
19
15
19
20
19
25
19
30
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
[EJ
]Hydro/Nuclear/Geoth.
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
Biofuels
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
5
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
0
20
40
60
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
[bill
ion
to
ns]
Construction minerals
Ores and industrial minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Biomass
Metabolic scale:Global materials use 1900 to 2005
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
6
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Composition of Global materials use 1900 to 2005: mineralization
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Construction minerals
Ores and industrial minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Biomass
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
7
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Global land-use change 1700-2000Biome 300 data
Source: Klein Goldewijk 2001
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 1970 1990
[Mio
. km
²]
Deserts and Ice
Shrublands
Natural grasslands &tundra
Boreal Forests
Temperated Forests
Tropical Forests
Marginal cropland/grazing
Intensive cropland
1990
resource use
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
8
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
9
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Global sociometabolic rates doubled
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.
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.
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
10
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
sociometabolic rates:Transitions between stable levels across 20th century
-
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
TP
ES
[GJ/
cap/
yr]
-
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
DM
C [t
/cap
/yr]
TPES/cap (primary y-axis)
DMC/cap (secondary y-axis)
Energy
Materials
Source: Krausmann et al. 2009
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
11
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
12
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Metabolic rate (materials) and income: loglinear relation, no sign of a “Kuznets curve”
R2 = 0.64
N = 175 countriesYear 2000
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
13
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Global metabolic rates grow slower than income („decoupling“)
Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009
-
3
6
9
12
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
0
1,5
3
4,5
6
DMC GDP (const. 2000 $)0
30
60
90
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0
2
4
6
TPES GDP (const. 2000 $)
Global DMC, t/cap/yr (left axis)
Global TPES, GJ/cap/yr (left axis)
Global GDP, $/cap*yr (right axis)
Global GDP, $/cap*yr (right axis)
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
14
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
15
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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.
drivers
See Haberl 2001
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
16
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
the agrarian - industrial transition: from biomass to fossil fuels in the UK,
1700-2000Share of energy sources in
primary energy consumption
(% DEC)
United Kingdom
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
biomass
coal
Oil / gas / nuc
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
17
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
the energy transition 1700-2000 - latecomers
Share of energy sources in primary
energy consumption (% DEC)
United Kingdom
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Austria
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Japan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
Japan
AustriaUK
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
18
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
The Great Transformation: Reduction of agricultural population, and gain in income 1600-2000
Share of agricultural population
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
GDP per capita [1990US$]
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
United Kingdom
Austria
Japan
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
19
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Metabolic rates of the agrarian and industrial regimetransition = explosion
Agrarian Industrial Factor
Energy use (DEC) per capita [GJ/cap] 40-70 150-400 3-5
Material use (DMC) per capita [t/cap] 3-6 15-25 3-5
Population density [cap/km²] <40 < 400 3-10
Agricultural population [%] >80% <10% 0.1
Energy use (DEC) per area [GJ/ha] <30 < 600 10-30
Material use (DMC) per area [t/ha] <2 < 50 10-30
Biomass (share of DEC) [%] >95 10-30 0.1-0.3
Source: Krausmann et al. 2008
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
20
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
21
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Resource consumption per capita by development status and population density
Metab.rates: DMC t/cap in yr 2000
-
5
10
15
20
25
High densityindustrial
Low densityindustrial
High densitydeveloping
Low densitydeveloping (NW)
Construction minerals
Ores and industrial minerals
Fossil fuels
BiomassShare of world population 13% 6% 62% 6%
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
drivers
industrial developing
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
22
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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.
drivers
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
23
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
24
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Phases of global resource use dynamics
-
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
TP
ES
[GJ/
cap/
yr]
-
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
DM
C [t
/cap
/yr]
TPES/cap (primary y-axis)
DMC/cap (secondary y-axis)
Energy
Materials
Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009
1930
1973
2000
coal based oil based Latency BUBBLE
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
25
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
USA
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
EU - 15
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Japan
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
World
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Brazil
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
India
0
10
20
30
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
material metabolic rates 1935 – 2005 not synchronized: very different depending on development status
USA EU15 JAPAN
WORLD BRAZIL INDIA
Construction min.Ind. min. & oresFossil fuelsbiomass
197319731973
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
26
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
27
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
28
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Projections of resource use up to 2050 – three forced future scenarios
Source: UNEP Decoupling Report 2010
transitions
0
50
100
150
19
00
19
25
19
50
19
75
20
00
20
25
20
50
me
tab
olic
sc
ale
[G
t]
Observed data
Freeze & catching up
Factor 2 & catching up
Freeze global DMC
0
6
12
18
19
00
19
25
19
50
19
75
20
00
20
25
20
50
me
tab
olic
ra
te [
t/c
ap
/yr]
Observed data
Freeze & catching up
Factor 2 & catching up
Freeze global DMC
Global metabolic scale (Gt) Global metabolic rate (t/cap)
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
29
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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.
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
30
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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.
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
31
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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).
transitions
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
32
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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
human wellbeingdecoupling
decoupling
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
33
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
EU15
EU27
Source: Social Ecology DB; averages 2000-2005
European Union: material de-growth (=absolute decoupling) only at low economic growth rates
decoupling
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
34
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Message 5:
a new transition, to a sustainable industrial metabolism, should be directed at human wellbeing!
And
YES, WE CAN!
human wellbeing
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
35
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
• Evtl. preston folie einfügen!
human 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!
Source: Preston 1975 (2008)
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
36
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
Human development vs. Carbon emissions
Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2009
20001995
19901985
19801975
R2 = 0,75 – 0,85
Carbon emissions
HDI
2005
human wellbeing
Fischer-Kowalski | UN Rio 20+ | 5-2010
37
transitionsresource use drivers human wellbeingdecoupling
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):637-656, 2008.
Recommended