A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights

Abstract

Strategies toward ambitious climate targets usually rely on the concept of 'decoupling'; that is, they aim at promoting economic growth while reducing the use of natural resources and GHG emissions. GDP growth coinciding with absolute reductions in emissions or resource use is denoted as 'absolute decoupling' , as opposed to 'relative decoupling' , where resource use or emissions increase less so than does GDP. Based on the bibliometric mapping in part I (Wiedenhofer et al, 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 063002), we synthesize the evidence emerging from the selected 835 peer-reviewed articles. We evaluate empirical studies of decoupling related to final/useful energy, exergy, use of material resources, as well as CO 2 and total GHG emissions. We find that relative decoupling is frequent for material use as well as GHG and CO 2 emissions but not for useful exergy, a quality-based measure of energy use. Primary energy can be decoupled from GDP largely to the extent to which the conversion of primary energy to useful exergy is improved. Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP from both production-and, weaklier, consumption-based CO 2 emissions. We analyze policies or strategies in the decoupling literature by classifying them into three groups:(1) Green growth, if sufficient reductions of resource use or emissions were deemed possible without altering the growth trajectory.(2) Degrowth, if reductions of resource use or emissions were given priority over GDP growth. (3) Others, e.g. if the role of energy for GDP growth was analyzed without reference to climate change mitigation. We conclude that large rapid absolute reductions of resource use and GHG emissions cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates, hence decoupling needs to be complemented by sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets. More research is needed on interdependencies between wellbeing, resources and emissions.

A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: bibliometric and conceptual mapping

“…Based on these considerations, we systematically reviewed the scientific literature in six steps (figure 1), five of which are discussed in this article, whereas the last is presented in part II of this review (Haberl et al 2020).…”

“…Step 6: the evidence synthesis and implications for policy and strategy are presented in part II (Haberl et al 2020).…”

“…For the evidence synthesis, we refer to part II of this review (Haberl et al 2020). There, we analyze the literature to identify key empirical and theoretical findings, summarize the implications of the literature in terms of the evidence on decoupling, and aim to understand the implications for policy and strategy based on a content analysis applied to a sub-sample of 125 studies (15% of the reviewed literature).…”

“…Section 4 then critically discusses the research streams to uncover their potential contributions and limitations for the investigation of decoupling. These insights are then used in part II (Haberl et al 2020) to partition the literature in thematic groups for analysis in terms of their substantive insights as well as their linkages to policies and strategies. Section 5 concludes on the status quo of the decoupling literature and makes some suggestions for the way forward.…”

“…Interestingly we find that since around 2011 more and more studies explicitly relate to these concepts and in 2018/19 45% of studies explicitly mention decoupling or the EKC. For further in-depth qualitative interpretations of these conceptual issues we also refer to part II of this review (Haberl et al 2020).…”