Globalizing patterns of natural resource use in relation to human

Globalizing patterns of natural resource use in relation to human development

Marina Fischer-Kowalski

Institute of Social Ecology, ViennaAlpen Adria University

Presentation to the UN Commission for Sustainable Development

Fischer-Kowalski | UN Sustainability | 5-2010|

4 messages I wish to get across

1. Across the globe, we use ever more resources with the help of ever more energy from fossil fuels, thus exhausting the resource base and destabilizing global geo-biospherical cycles.

2. Global resource use (materials and energy) is driven by population, income, development and constrained by population density.

3. Access to resources, and use of resources, is extremely unequal internationally. Without well designed policies, this will result in severe conflicts.

4. At the same time, improving human quality of life is becoming less resource dependent – we can achieve more with less.


Message 1: Centennial resource use explosion

Definition: sociometabolic scale is the size of the overall annual material orprimary 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


sociometabolic scale: Global commercial energy supply 1900-2005

-

100

200

300

400

500

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

[EJ]

Hydro/Nuclear/Geoth.Natural GasOilCoalBiofuels

Source: Krausmann et al. 2009

resource use


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

tons

]Construction minerals

Ores and industrial minerals

Fossil energy carriers

Biomass

Metabolic scale: Global materials use 1900 to 2005


resource use


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


Resource use per person = 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

TPES

[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


drivers


sociometabolic 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


Global metabolic rates grow slower than income („decoupling“)

Source: after Krausmann et al. 2009

-

3

6

9

12

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

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


Message 3: Access to resources, and use of resources, is extremely unequal internationally. Without well

designed policies, this will result in severe conflicts.

Interwoven problems:• Unequal distribution of natural resources on earth• Corporate control over resources and the depletion of

countries‘ natural capital for little benefit („resource curse“)• Unequal consumption rates of natural resources• Externalization of environmental cost of resource extraction• Global scarcities accellerating (intergenerational problem)


sociometabolic rates 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 mineralsOres and industrial mineralsFossil fuelsBiomass

Share of world population 13% 6% 62% 6%


drivers

Fischer-Kowalski | UN Sustainability | 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

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


Phases of 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

TPES

[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


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


transitions


Projections of resource use up to 2050 – three forced future scenarios


transitions

0

50

100

150

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

met

abol

ic s

cale

[Gt]

Observed dataFreeze & catching upFactor 2 & catching upFreeze global DMC

0

6

12

18

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

met

abol

ic ra

te [t

/cap

/yr]

Observed dataFreeze & catching upFactor 2 & catching upFreeze global DMC

Global metabolic scale (Gt) Global metabolic rate (t/cap)


Message 4:

a new transition, to a sustainable industrial metabolism, should be directed at human wellbeing!

And

YES, WE CAN!

human wellbeing


• Evtl. preston folie einfügen!

human wellbeing

Life expectancy at birth in relation to national income: In 1960, for same life expectancy only half the income is required than in 1930!

Source: Preston 1975 (2008)


Human development vs. Carbon emissions

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2009

20001995

19901985

19801975

R2 = 0,75 – 0,85

Carbon emissions

HDI

2005

human wellbeing

Documents

Globalizing patterns of natural resource use in relation to human