Decoupling Analysis of Four Selected Countries

Abstract

Summary We examine decoupling conditions of domestic extraction of materials, energy use, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from gross domestic product (GDP) for two BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries (i.e., China and Russia) and two Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries (Japan and the United States) during 2000–2007, using a pair of decoupling indicators for resource use (Dr) and waste emissions (De) and the decoupling chart, which can distinguish between absolute decoupling, relative decoupling, and non‐decoupling. We find that (1) during 2000–2007, decoupling between environmental indicators and GDP was higher in the two OECD countries as compared with the two BRIC countries. The key reason is that these countries were in different development stages with different economic growth rates. (2) Changes in environmental policies can significantly influence the degree of decoupling in a country. (3) China, Japan, and the United States were more successful in decoupling SO2 emissions from GDP than in decoupling material and energy use from GDP. The main reason is that, unlike resource use, waste emissions (e.g., SO2 emissions) can be reduced by effective end‐of‐pipe treatment. (4) The decoupling indicator is different from the changing rate of resource use and waste emissions. If two countries have different GDP growth rates, even though they may have similar values using the decoupling indicator, they may show different rates of change for resource use and waste emissions.

A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems

“…Absolute decoupling of Domestic Extraction Use (DEU) was also explored by Wang et al (2013) in Japan. Decoupling indicators for resource use (D r ) and emissions (D e ) are used to distinguish between absolute (D r ≥ 1), relative (0 < D r < 1) and non-decoupling (D r < 1) for two BRICS countries (China and Russia), Japan and United States during 2000-2007 to examine decoupling conditions of domestic extraction of materials, energy use and sulphur dioxide emissions from Gross Domestic Product .…”

Decoupling Economic Development from the Consumption of Finite Resources Using Circular Economy. A Model for Developing Countries

“…When the rate of resource use, or the environmental impact is less than the economic growth rate and positive, it is considered to be relative decoupling. Alternatively, when the relationship is zero or negative, it is called absolute decoupling [29,30].…”

“…Furthermore, other indicators often used in empirical research encompass domestic extraction, domestic material input, domestic material consumption, total material input [28], and total material requirement [19] (see Figure 1 for definitions). To account for environmental impacts, researchers have used the life cycle assessment methodology [31] with indicators such as SOx, COx, NOx and greenhouse gases for air pollution (e.g., [29,32]); the water exploitation index, artificial land area and ground pollution [28] among others. Finally, the well-being variable in the equation, despite being a complex concept, has been addressed through indicators such as the poverty rate, the employment rate, the human development index and the social progress index [33].…”

Delinking of Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in the Visegrad Group

“…One part of the publications puts the emission into the center, another part focuses on the energy use. There are papers which examine only one country (such as Grand (2016), a country group (such as Wang et al, 2013), and some perform global analysis as well (such as Bithas & Kalimeris, 2013;Csereklyei & Stern, 2015). Not only the national-level analysis, but the sectoral papers (such as Andreoni & Galmarini, 2012) had been produced more frequently.…”