the world economy’s use of natural resources: history, dynamics, drivers and future perspectives

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


3


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


4


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


5


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


resource use


6


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



Fossil energy carriers

Biomass


resource use


7


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


8


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


9


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


10


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


drivers


11







drivers


12


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


13


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


14







drivers


15


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


16


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


17


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


18


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


19


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


drivers


20






• Human settlement patterns: population density as constraint for resource use

drivers


21


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)



Fossil fuels

BiomassShare of world population 13% 6% 62% 6%


drivers

industrial developing


22


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


23


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


24


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


25


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


26


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


27


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


28


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


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)


29


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


30


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


31


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


32


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


33


EU15

EU27

Source: Social Ecology DB; averages 2000-2005

European Union: material de-growth (=absolute decoupling) only at low economic growth rates

decoupling


34


Message 5:

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

And

YES, WE CAN!

human wellbeing


35


• 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)


36


Human development vs. Carbon emissions

Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2009

20001995

19901985

19801975

R2 = 0,75 – 0,85

Carbon emissions

HDI

2005

human wellbeing


37


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.

the world economy’s use of natural resources: history, dynamics, drivers and future perspectives

Documents

energy use

materials use

land use

mio km2resource use

future scenarios of

lower resource usedrivers

century global energy

ej primary energy