The Emperor's Green Clothes: Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism

This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh]On: 17 October 2014, At: 09:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Capitalism Nature SocialismPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcns20

The Emperor's Green Clothes:Growth, Decoupling, andCapitalismPetter Næss & Karl Georg HøyerPublished online: 23 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Petter Næss & Karl Georg Høyer (2009) The Emperor's GreenClothes: Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 20:3, 74-95,DOI: 10.1080/10455750903215753

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455750903215753

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcns20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10455750903215753

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455750903215753

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

REAL ECONOMY

The Emperor’s Green Clothes:Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism

Petter Næss and Karl Georg Høyer

Introduction

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (oftencalled the Brundtland Commission after its chairwoman, former Norwegian PrimeMinister, Gro Harlem Brundtland) launched its report Our Common Future.1 Withthis report, the concept of sustainable development was put on the internationalpolitical agenda. Distinct from many previous environmental reports, such as the1972 Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome,2 the Brundtland Commission claimedthat economic growth and environmental sustainability could be combined. Indeed,‘‘reviving economic growth’’ was pointed out as one of the ‘‘critical objectives’’ ofsustainable development. The Commission was aware of the possible objection thatnegative environmental impacts might result from economic growth. The Commis-sion therefore underlined that the content of growth must be changed so that it cantake place within the limits of what is ecologically sustainable. In line with theparallel discourse on ecological modernization, the World Commission pointed ateco-efficiency and substitution as the ways to decouple economic growth fromnegative environmental impacts.

Decoupling means cutting the link between economic growth and environ-mental degradation. Increasing eco-efficiency refers to the production of commod-ities of equal or better quality while reducing their resource consumption andnegative environmental impacts. Improved technological solutions are the crucialmeans to obtain higher eco-efficiency. Substitution means a change in the pattern ofconsumption from environmentally harmful to less environmentally harmful forms.Dematerialization is a joint concept including both eco-efficiency and substitution

1World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1987).2Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, The Limits toGrowth (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Association, 1972).

CAPITALISM NATURE SOCIALISM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3 (SEPTEMBER 2009)

ISSN 1045-5752 print/ISSN 1548-3290 online/09/030074-22

# 2009 The Center for Political Ecology www.cnsjournal.org

DOI: 10.1080/10455750903215753

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

and refers to a decoupling of economic growth from resource consumption andnegative environmental impacts.

In this paper, we argue that continual economic growth and long-termenvironmental sustainability are incompatible.3 First, we revisit the environmentaldebate on growth and limits to growth. Next, we describe some strategies fordematerialization. Using examples of how reduction of material resource input andenvironmental load per unit produced are pursued within different settings, we showthat the scope for decoupling growth in production and consumption fromenvironmental degradation is limited and that the decoupling strategy is unable tokeep up with unlimited growth.

The Environmental Growth Debate

Modern environmental debate is generally considered to have originated withthe publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.4 Carson demonstrated howpesticides found their way to wildlife at great distances from the agricultural fieldswhere they were originally applied. In a way this was an illustration of theenvironmental costs of economic growth, which very soon became a major term inthe debate. Broadly speaking, the debate has gone through four phases:

. The costs of growth*1960s

. The limits to growth*1970s

. Exceeded limits to growth*1980s

. Sustainable growth*1990s

In 1967 the renowned British economist Edward Mishan, published the bookThe Costs of Economic Growth.5 A popular version, Growth: The Price we Pay, waspublished two years later and translated into numerous languages.6 Like Carson’sSilent Spring, it was to become highly influential in most parts of the Western world.

3Resource consumption per capita, population, and technology are often considered the main parameters

influencing the global ecological carrying capacity. See, among others, Barry Commoner, ‘‘The Environmental

Cost of Economic Growth,’’ in Population, Resources and the Environment (Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1972), pp. 339�363. Our focus on growth in resource consumption per capita and the limited

possibilities of decoupling this growth from environmental impacts does not mean that we consider the

population growth issue unimportant. For a broader discussion, see Petter Næss, ‘‘Live and Let Die: The

Tragedy of Hardin’s Social Darwinism,’’ Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 19�34.4Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).5Edward J. Mishan, The Costs of Economic Growth (London: Staples Press, 1967).6Edward J. Mishan, Growth: The Price We Pay (London: Staples Press, 1969).

THE EMPEROR’S GREEN CLOTHES 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

About ten years later Mishan himself summarized the essentials of this debate in thebook The Economic Growth Debate*An Assessment.7 For the first time in the postwarperiod, the links between growth and progress were seriously questioned. Notably,Mishan emphasized that the collective pursuit of economic growth has complex andfar-reaching consequences both on the biosphere and on the ‘‘sociosphere,’’consequences that are by no means entirely benign.8 This*the consequences ofgrowth*became a main focus in the first phase of the growth debate.

Other contributors in these early years raised more fundamental critiques. TheAmerican economist Kenneth Boulding was one. His article, ‘‘The Economics of theComing Spaceship Earth,’’ has been extensively cited.9 Boulding compared two idealtypes of economic systems: the existing open economy*the cowboy economy*and afuture closed economy: the spaceman economy. In a spaceman economy, thethroughput of matter and energy is by no means a desideratum, but somethingthat should be minimized rather than maximized. Boulding claimed that the idea ofconsidering both consumption and production as undesirable is alien to mainstreameconomists, who are obsessed with income-flow concepts to the exclusion of capital-stock concepts.10

Similar ideas were later more extensively developed by the Romanian-Americantheoretical economist, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.11 His analyses are based on thetwo basic laws of thermodynamics, in particular the second, or so-called entropy law.Entropy is another word for disorder. According to Georgescu-Roegen theimplication is clear:12

Every time we produce a Cadillac, we irrevocably destroy an amount of lowentropy [high quality] that could otherwise be used for producing a plow or a

spade. In other words, every time we produce a Cadillac, we do it at the cost ofdecreasing the number of human lives in the future. Economic developmentthrough industrial abundance may be a blessing for us now and for those who willbe able to enjoy it in the near future, but it is definitely against the interest of the

human species as a whole, if its interest is to have a lifespan as long as iscompatible with its dowry of low entropy. In this paradox of economicdevelopment we can see the price man has to pay for the unique privilege of

being able to go beyond the biological limits in the struggle for life.

7Edward J. Mishan, The Economic Growth Debate: An Assessment (London: Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1977).8Ibid., p. 9.9Kenneth E. Boulding, ‘‘The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth,’’ in Henry Jarrett (ed.), EnvironmentalQuality in a Growing Economy (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1966).10Ibid., p. 78.11Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1971); Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, ‘‘The Entropy Law and the Economic Problem,’’ in Herman E. Daly

(ed.), Toward a Steady-State Economy (San Francisco Freeman and Co., 1973); Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen,

‘‘The Steady State and Ecological Salvation: A Thermodynamic Analysis,’’ Bioscience, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1977,

p. 266.12Georgescu-Roegen, 1973, op. cit., pp. 46�47.

76 PETTER NÆSS AND KARL GEORG HØYER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Analyses like these were later integrated into a new field of theoreticaleconomics, ecological economy, with its own international journal titled EcologicalEconomics.13 It is worth emphasizing that such theories constitute critiques that arejust as fundamental to socialist as to capitalist economy. Georgescu-Roegen claimsthat nothing could be further from the truth than the notion that the economicprocess is an isolated, circular affair*as both Marxist and standard analyses representit: ‘‘The economic process is solidly anchored to a material base which is subject todefinite constraints.’’14

With the 1972 publication of The Club of Rome book The Limits to Growth,the debate turned from growth costs to the more fundamental growth limits.15 TheMIT research team behind the book used a computer model to analyze growth trendsin world population, industrialization, resource depletion, pollution, and foodproduction. They concluded that absolute limits to growth would be reached within100 years. With ongoing exponential growth of population and capital, the modeledworld system was subject to sudden and uncontrollable decline, even with the mostoptimistic assumptions.16

As a result of the limits to growth debate, the concept of steady-state economy waslaunched and subjected to substantial theoretical reworking among alternativeeconomists. A major contributor to these works was the American economistHerman E. Daly.17 He emphasized that the economic and social implications of thesteady-state would be enormous and revolutionary. In line with the work of KennethBoulding, he argued that the physical flows of production and consumption must beminimized, not maximized. The central concept must be the stock of wealth, not theflow of income and consumption. Furthermore the stock must not grow. Theimportant issue brought to the fore by the steady-state concept was distribution, notproduction.18

A major focus in the 1980’s was that the limits to growth had already beenextensively exceeded. No longer could the focus be only on achieving steady-state; ithad to include the need for substantial reductions in the volume of the globaleconomy.19 Daly underlined the necessity of distinguishing between problems linkedto volume, distribution, and allocation.20 According to Daly, there is a ‘‘right’’ volume

13Robert Costanza (ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1991); Charles A.S. Hall, Cutler J. Cleveland, and Robert K. Kaufman, Energy andResource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986).14Georgescu-Roegen, 1973, op. cit., p. 43.15Donella H. Meadows, et al., 1972, op. cit.16Gabor Zovanyi, Growth Management for a Sustainable Future (New York: Praeger, 1998).17Herman E. Daly, 1973, op. cit.18Ibid., p. 19.19Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb, For the Common Good (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989); Herman E. Daly

and Kenneth N. Townsend (eds.), Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993),

pp. 267�273.20Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb, 1989, op. cit.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

for an economy in relation to ecosystems, and this may be indicated as a physicalquantity. This applies both in relation to ‘‘resources’’ and ‘‘recipients.’’ Daly putforward a series of arguments to the effect that the global economy already has avolume which is much bigger than the ‘‘right one.’’ The recommendations by theIntergovernmental Panel for Climate Change for substantial global reductions ofCO2 emissions support his argument. A key element in Daly’s analysis is the fact thatvolume as well as distribution are data that a market system requires to bedetermined exogenously (outside the system) in order to solve allocation problemsefficiently*that is, to ensure a rational allocation of resources among the varioussegments of the economy. For this reason, volume and distribution are not variablesthat should be valued through a market system. Instead they must both bedetermined by means of political processes at a superior, societal level. Volume*substantially reduced from today*must be determined in view of ecologicalsustainability. Distribution must be decided on the basis of the normative value ofequity, both within the current generation and between generations.

Strategies to Combine Economic Growth with Environmental Protection

As mentioned above, the Brundtland Commission postulated ‘‘reviving growth’’as one of the ‘‘critical objectives’’ of a sustainable development. The belief in thepossibility of decoupling economic growth from negative environmental conse-quences is a key tenet of the doctrine known as ecological modernization.21

According to this theory, solutions to environmental problems can be found withinthe context of industrial capitalism. However, the capitalist economy in its presentform is limited by the capacity of the natural environment to absorb the effects ofeconomic growth and to supply necessary resource inputs. Resource depletion andrecipient overload will in the long term not only undermine natural ecosystems,human health and quality of life, but also destroy the possibilities for continualeconomic growth. Capitalism must therefore undergo a process of transformation ifit is to be sustainable in the long term. Along with strong efforts in environmentallysound technology development, changes in legislation and tax systems have beenadvocated in order to promote environmental policy integration across sectors andtiers and to create incentives for market mechanisms to contribute to eco-efficiency.According to ecological modernization theory, society in its present form need not bechanged, as pressures from customers, environmental groups, legislators, etc. willforce organizations to take environmental responsibility and come up withtechnological solutions.22

21See, e.g., Arthur P.J. Mol and Gert Spaargaren, ‘‘Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate: A Review,’’ in

Arthur P.J. Mol and David Sonnenfeld (eds.), Ecological Modernization Around the World (London: Routledge,

2000), pp. 17�49; Stephen C. Young (ed.), The Emergence of Ecological Modernization: Integrating theEnvironment and the Economy? (London: Routledge, 2000).22Lars Strannegard, Black-boxing Eco-modernization: Nature and Market Discourses in Leadership Practice(Stockholm: Centre for Advanced Studies in Leadership, 1995).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The theory of ecological modernization is closely associated with the hypothesisof an ‘‘Environmental Kuznets Curve’’ (EKC).23 According to this hypothesis,growth in already affluent societies will contribute to improve rather than reduceenvironmental quality, because increased wealth implies that more money may bespent on the development of environmentally friendly technologies. In this way,technological development in the wealthy part of the world is believed to compensatefor the increased environmental load resulting from the industrialization of lessaffluent countries.

However, until now, such a possible mechanism has not been strong enough tocounter opposing trends in which economic growth contributes to increasingenvironmental disintegration. Admittedly, rising GDP levels accompanied byreduced emissions have been found for certain pollutants at a local scale.24

However, for a number of other types of environmental impacts, there is far lessevidence of such decoupling. According to Spangenberg, no indication of anEnvironmental Kuznets Curve can be found in cases accounting for the total use ofenergy, materials, and land.25 The few studies carried out on loss of biodiversitysuggest that further economic growth in an already wealthy country or region isaccompanied by higher biodiversity losses than growth of the same magnitude in acountry or region where the GDP per capita is moderate.26 Deforestation due toconversion of land into sites for housing, commercial and transport infrastructuredevelopment, and farmland expansion are examples of processes that lead toreduced biodiversity as the level of affluence increases. Energy use and CO2

emissions are other examples of impact categories where the results of studies of theEKC hypothesis are either ambiguous and fragile27 or contradict the hypothesis.28

For example, Azomahou and Van Phu investigated economic growth and CO2

emissions in 100 countries during the period from 1960 to 1996. Using non-parametric regressions, they found a correlation between economic growth and

23John Barry and Matthew Paterson, ‘‘The British State and the Environment: New Labour’s Ecological

Modernization Strategy,’’ International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 237�249.24E.g., Gene M. Grossman and Alan B. Krueger, ‘‘Econometric Growth and the Environment,’’ QuarterlyJournal of Economics, Vol. 60, 1995, pp. 353�377; Steven F. Hayward, ‘‘The China Syndrome and the

Environmental Kuznets Curve,’’ Environmental Policy Outlook, (published by the American Enterprise Institute

for Public Policy Research), November�December 2005.25Joachim Spangenberg, ‘‘The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Methodological Artefact?,’’ Population andEnvironment, Vol. 23, 2001, pp. 175�191.26Simon Dietz, Does an Environmental Kuznets Curve Exist for Biodiversity? (Zurich: Institut fur

Wirtschaftsforschung, 2000); Pushpam Kumar and Suresh Chand Aggarwal, ‘‘Does an Environmental

Kuznets Curve Exist for Changing Land Use? Empirical Evidence from Major States of India,’’ InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 6, 2003, pp. 231�245.27Marzio Galeotti, Alessandro Lanza, and Francesco Pauli, ‘‘Reassessing the Environmental Kuznets Curve for

CO2 Emissions: A Robustness Exercise,’’ Ecological Economics, Vol. 57, 2006, pp. 156�163.28Jean Agras and Duane Chapman, ‘‘A Dynamic Approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis,’’

Ecological Economics, Vol. 28, 1999, pp. 267�277; David I. Stern and Cutler J. Cleveland, ‘‘Energy and

Economic Growth,’’ Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics, No. 0410, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,

Troy, NY, 2004; Theophile Azomahou and Nguyen Van Phu, Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions: ANonparametric Approach (Leuven: Universite Catholique Louvain, 2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

increased CO2 emissions among poor countries, middle-income countries, andwealthy countries. Within all three groups, CO2 emissions tend to increase withhigher Gross Domestic Products.29

The fact that correlations between affluence levels and emissions of somepollutants (notably NO2, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide) consistent with theEKC hypothesis have been found may in part be due to the limitation of many suchstudies to a confined geographical scale (e.g., cities). According to Stern, totalpollution emissions tend to rise with increasing income rather than follow aninverted U-shaped curve.30 Pollution concentrations may still follow the curvepredicted by the EKC hypothesis due to urban and industrial decentralization, tallersmoke stacks, etc. Moreover, reduced emission levels in wealthy countries may be aresult of outsourcing polluting industries to poor countries.31 Another case in pointis the fact that the emission reductions obtained for impact categories where someevidence for the EKC hypothesis can be found result from strong governmentalregulations. While the EKC hypothesis is often used in the environmental debate tocreate an image of a ‘‘self-regulatory’’ market economy, the empirical examplesreferred to in supporting this hypothesis were dependent on precisely the type ofregulations that are usually fiercely opposed by its proponents.

The fact that dematerialization sufficient to counterweigh the impacts ofeconomic growth has not taken place until now does not in itself rule out thepossibility for a stronger and more successful dematerialization in the future.However, prospects for this still do not seem very promising in the light of the nearly40 years that have passed since the publication of the Limits to Growth report andthe more than 20 years since the publication of the Brundtland report. Decouplinggrowth from environmental degradation has thus been on the agenda at the sametime that only partial and local evidence of the EKC hypothesis has been found.Moreover, many of the lowest-hanging fruits have probably been picked during thistime. Improving eco-efficiency further will require more technologically challengingmeasures and more socially controversial actions. This may be the reason why somerecent studies indicate that in the longer term, the Environmental Kuznets Curvetends to be N-shaped instead of the inverted U-shape.32 This suggests that pollutionincreases as a poor country becomes industrialized, decreases once a thresholdaffluence level is reached, and then begins increasing again as national incomecontinues to increase.

29Azomahou and Van Phu, 2001, op. cit.30David I. Stern, ‘‘The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve,’’ World Development, Vol. 32, 2004,

pp. 1419�1439.31Andrew Leonard, ‘‘Outsourcing Pollution?,’’ How the World Works, August 22, 2006, published online at:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/08/22/kuznets/; Stern and Cleveland, 2004, op. cit.32See, for example, Birgit Friedl and Michael Getzner, ‘‘Determinants of CO2 Emissions in a Small Open

Economy,’’ Ecological Economics, Vol. 45, 2003, pp. 133�148; Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzoso and Aurelia

Bengochea-Morancho, ‘‘Pooled Mean Group Estimation for an Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2,’’

Economics Letters, Vol. 82, 2004, pp. 121�126.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The so-called Factor 4 and Factor 10 objectives are often used to concretizethe idea of dematerialization. For example, with a ‘‘Factor 4’’ increase in eco-efficiency, the same commodity can be produced with only a quarter of theprevious resource consumption, and hence with only a quarter of the previousenvironmental load. These objectives were originally formulated by environmentalresearchers to illustrate the magnitude of the required reductions of resourceconsumption and environmental load in rich countries that would be needed toachieve environmental sustainability.33 The ‘‘factor’’ thinking was modified by‘‘green capitalism’’ proponents who referred to a reduction of the environmentalload and resource consumption per unit produced of a commodity, as distinct fromthe original use of the Factor 10 objectives where the reduction referred to was inabsolute units. ‘‘Factor 4’’ thus came to be used as an objective of ‘‘doubling wealthwhile halving resource use.’’34

Examples of technology improvement resulting in a high eco-efficiency factorare the production of significantly lighter beer and soft drink cans that reduce theconsumption of aluminum, low-energy bulbs that use much less electricity, andelectronic equipment such as microchips which have become smaller and smaller.If similar improvements could be made within society at large, so the argumentgoes, we can have our cake and eat it too: higher production and consumptioncombined with reducing negative environmental impacts. In 1997, the UNGeneral Assembly in line with this perspective recommended that industrializedcountries look more closely at eco-efficiency as a strategy for attaining sustainabledevelopment. Both in the Nordic countries and elsewhere in Europe, the UNrecommendation has been followed up with studies on how it might be possiblewithin different sectors to achieve ‘‘Factor 4’’ and ‘‘Factor 10.’’35 Besides increasingthe efficiency of production, dematerialization includes strategies to change thecontent of growth by giving priority to the parts of the economy that require theleast amounts of energy and raw materials. This is what was referred to above assubstitution. The service sector in general, and knowledge production and culturein particular, are often mentioned as examples of sectors with moderateenvironmental impacts.

Limits to Dematerialization

Some prominent economists have criticized the idea that higher efficiency andsubstitution of consumption away from the most harmful categories are sufficient to

33Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek, Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch*MIPS, das Mass fur oekologisches Wirtschaften,(Basel/Boston/Berlin: Birkhaeuser, 1993).34Ernst U. von Weizsacker, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use: A Report to the Club of Rome(London: Earthscan, 1998).35Nordic Council of Ministers, ‘‘Factors 4 and 10 in the Nordic Countries: the Transport Sector, the Forest

Sector, the Building and Real Estates Sector, the Food Supply Chain,’’ Nordic Council of Ministers,

Copenhagen, 1999.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

ensure sustainable development.36 For one thing, there is an absence of institutionalframeworks (e.g., legislation, regulations, taxation, and subsidies) for changing thequality of growth. In addition, private enterprises as well as many politicians havebeen strong opponents of the introduction of such institutional arrangements.

More fundamentally, even if institutional frameworks were eventually estab-lished, serious doubt may be raised against the possibility of making continuingeconomic growth environmentally sustainable. In its physical dimension, theeconomy is an open subsystem of the earth system, which is finite, non-growing,and materially closed (except for the influx of solar energy and occasional solidparticles, like meteorites). As the economic subsystem grows, it incorporates an evergreater proportion of the total ecosystem into itself and must reach a limit.37

Institutional arrangements that may change the quality of growth are thus only ableto postpone the collision between ecological limits and economic growth. Theycannot enable humanity to trespass such limits.

One of the most important elements in dematerialization is recycling, whichmeans that the same resources are used again and again*and again. With ever-increasing product volumes the recycling rate must increase. In practice, this impliesthat the products tying up resources must be taken out of use with a shorter intervaleach time. However, recycling is not environmentally neutral. It consumes energyand material resources, and even more so if the circulation rate is increased.38

Moreover, many materials begin to fail after a couple of recycling cycles and have tobe put to different uses.

Growth and Decoupling: The Case of Norway

The UN Brundtland Commission was headed by the Norwegian politician andPrime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. She had a background as an internationallyinfluential Minister of the Environment in the 1970s. During the period when theCommission report was worked out, she was, however, also recognized as the keyactor behind the substantial changes in her Norwegian Labour party towardsneoliberal economic and political ideology,39 similar to the changes carried throughby Tony Blair in the U.K. Labour party more than a decade later.

36See for example, Daly and Cobb, 1989, op. cit.; Trygve Haavelmo and Stein Hansen, ‘‘On the Strategy of

Trying to Reduce Economic Inequality by Expanding the Scale of Human Activity,’’ in Robert Goodland,

Herman E. Daly, and Salah El Serafy (eds.), Population, Technology, and Lifestyle: The Transition toSustainability (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1992), pp. 38�51.37Daly, 1993, op. cit.38Karl G. Høyer, ‘‘Recycling: Issues and Possibilities,’’ in D. Brune, D. Chapman, M.O. Gwynne, and J.M.

Pacyna (eds.), The Global Environment: Science, Technology and Management, Vol. 2 (Weinheim: VCH

Publishing, 1997).39H. Nilsen and D. Østerberg, Statskvinnen: Gro Harlem Brundtland og nyliberalismen (Oslo: Aschehoug,

1998).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Within the UN it was natural to select a Norwegian to head the Commission.Norway, together with the Nordic countries Denmark and Sweden, had gainedinternational recognition for their efforts and achievements in environmental politicsboth domestically and in the international arena. This reputation has broadlycontinued in the two decades that have elapsed since the Commission report waspublished. The three countries have had key roles in hosting important internationalenvironmental conferences, most recently related to climate change. Notably, thefirst major UN global summit on environmental problems was hosted by Stockholmin 1972, 20 years before the famous Rio global summit on sustainable development.

If decoupling in any way is achievable, Norway is a country where it should bedemonstrable. On the one hand, it is known as a forerunner in environmental policy,and on the other, it has experienced continuous, strong economic growth combinedwith an extensive structure of public sectors and policies. It is also a country subjectedto structural changes often equated with ‘‘late modernity,’’ in particular, changes froma production to a consumption society, in which leisure time consumption hasgained more importance.40 As mentioned earlier, many believe such structuralchanges reduce the total environmental load, and thus in themselves contribute todecoupling. Norway has enforced energy efficiency measures in housing, industry,and transport; at the same time polluting industries have been relocated to otherparts of the world, particularly China and Eastern Europe.

The total environmental effects of these changes has been assessed in Norway. Amajor research project analyzed and compared the total environmental loads ofNorwegian production and consumption for the three years 1987, 1997, and 2006,covering a significant period after publication of the Brundtland Commissionreport.41 A separate in-depth analysis of the total environmental loads of leisure timeconsumption has also been done.42

The total environmental loads are expressed through three indices of sustain-ability:

1. Gross consumption of primary energy, including both direct and indirectenergy;

2. Gross emissions of total greenhouse gas CO2-equivalents, including bothdirect and indirect emissions; and

40Z. Bauman Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1998) ; Z. Bauman

Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004).41J. Hille, H. Storm, C. Aall, and H. Sataøen, ‘‘Miljøbelastningen fra norsk forbruk og norsk produksjon 1987�2007’’ [‘‘The Environmental Loads from Norwegian Consumption and Production 1987-2007’’], Western

Norway Research Institute, Report No 2/2008, 2008.42J. Hille, C. Aall, and I. Klepp, ‘‘Miljøbelastninger fra norsk fritidsforbruk’’ [‘‘Environmental Loads from

Norwegian Leisure Time Consumption’’], Western Norway Research Institute, Report No 1/2007, 2007.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

3. Gross ecological footprints, including both direct and indirect components.43

All three include the effects of Norwegians’ consumption abroad, in particular,international air transport, and of imported products, including products for leisuretime.

As shown in Table 1,44 overall decoupling has not taken place in any meaningfulway, even though it may be the case for separate and strongly delimited sectors.

A Concrete Example: The Development of the Building Stock in Cities

Let us take a look at a concrete example of the prospects for reducing theenvironmental load with the construction of dwellings and other buildings in urbanareas. In a report on the opportunities for implementing Factor 4 and 10 targets fordifferent economic sectors in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the NordicCouncil of Ministers concluded that the environmental impact from energyconsumption in buildings could be reduced by a factor of 10 through a combinationof reduced energy consumption per square meter and by using more environmentallyfriendly energy resources. The use of material resources could be reduced by a similarorder of magnitude. The report underlined that such changes are only likely to occurif the public authorities use a number of incentives through taxes, regulations, andsubsidies and if a close cooperation between the building sector and the authorities isestablished.45

Some of the environmental impacts of building activity can be reduced to a certainextent by means of eco-efficiency measures such as solar energy, heat pumps, better

Table 1. Total Environmental Loads from Norwegian Production and Consumption 1987�2006. 1987�100

Sustainability Index 1987 1997 2006

Gross primary energy use 100 113 122

Gross CO2-equivalent emissions 100 102 117Gross ecological footprints 100 112 130

43Ecological Footprints are calculated according to the internationally applied methodology. See ‘‘Living Planet

Report 2000,’’ World Wildlife Fund, 2001.44Hille, et al., 2008, op. cit., pp. 176�193.45Nordic Council of Ministers, ‘‘Factors 4 and 10 in the Nordic Countries: the Transport Sector, the Forest

Sector, the Building and Real Estate Sector, the Food Supply Chain,’’ TemaNord, Nordic Council of Ministers,

Copenhagen, 1999.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

insulation materials, and so on. For other types of environmental impacts, the prospectsof reductions through new technical solutions are not so bright. This is true in terms ofthe consumption of land for building sites, especially when it encroaches intoagricultural soil, natural areas, and valuable landscapes, issues that the Nordic Councilstudy did not address. However, the report states that a 4 or 10 factor of change in theenvironmental load of the building and real estate sector can only be achieved withmore concentrated developmental patterns and less land-consuming types of housing.

As advocates of ‘‘smart growth’’ urban development argue, concentrated,medium- and high-density urban developmental patterns require less land forbuilding sites than low-density and dispersed land use. Hence, densification ratherthan urban sprawl seems favorable for the protection of natural landscapes, arableland, and biodiversity.46 This is particularly so if the densification can be channeledto ‘‘brownfield’’ sites, e.g., derelict or under-utilized industrial areas, obsolete harborareas, and parking lots, which are incompatible with the aim of reducing car traffic inthe urban center.47 Energy-conscious spatial planning also points rather unambigu-ously toward relatively dense developmental patterns with a low proportion ofdetached single-family houses. Concentrated types of housing (apartment buildingsand row houses) require less energy for space heating per square meter than detachedsingle-family houses.48 Dense and concentrated cities are also favorable in terms ofenergy use for transport.49

Thus, concentrated development, re-use of urban areas and more effectiveutilization of building sites, with apartment buildings and row houses rather thansingle family houses, seem to be more effective in limiting energy consumption,reducing pollution and protecting natural areas and arable land.

46Timothy Beatley, ‘‘Preserving Biodiversity: Challenges for Planners,’’ Journal of American PlanningAssociation, Vol. 66, 2000, pp. 5�20; Robert D. Bullard (ed.), Growing Smarter: Achieving LivableCommunities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007).47Petter Næss, ‘‘Can Urban Development Be Made Environmentally Sound?,’’ Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, Vol. 36, 1993, pp. 309�333.48Karl G. Høyer and Erling Holden, ‘‘Household Consumption and Ecological Footprints in Norway: Does

Urban Form Matter?’’ Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 26, 2003, pp. 327�349.49Peter G.W. Newman and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy, ‘‘Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S.

Cities with a Global Survey,’’ Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 55, 1989, pp. 24�37; Petter Næss,

‘‘Transportation Energy in Swedish Towns and Regions,’’ Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, Vol. 10,

1993, pp. 187�206; Petter Næss, Synnøve L. Sandberg and Per G. Røe, ‘‘Energy Use for Transportation in 22

Nordic Towns,’’ Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, Vol. 13, 1996, pp. 79�97; Petter Næss & Synnøve

L. Sandberg, ‘‘Workplace Location, Modal Split and Energy Use for Commuting Trips,’’ Urban Studies, Vol.

33, 1996, pp. 557�580; Petter Næss, Urban Structure Matters: Residential Location, Car Dependence and Travel(New York/London: Routledge, 2006); Chris Zegras, ‘‘The Built Environment and Motor Vehicle Ownership

and Use: Evidence from Santiago de Chile,’’ forthcoming in Urban Studies, Vol. 46, 2009; Petter Næss,

‘‘Residential Self-Selection and Appropriate Control Variables in Land Use: Travel Studies,’’ Transport Reviews,Vol. 29, 2009, pp. 293�324; Petter Næss, ‘‘Residential Location, Travel and Energy Use: The Case of

Hangzhou Metropolitan Area,’’ forthcoming in Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 2, 2009.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

In Norway, political focus on sustainable urban development has been strongsince the late 1980s. Based on the arguments outlined above, strong professional andpolitical discourse coalitions were formed in Norway around the issue of limitingurban sprawl. A long trend of decreasing population densities in Norwegian citieswas reversed in the 1990s, especially in the largest urban areas. For the metropolitanregion of Oslo as a whole (1.1 million inhabitants), the population density within thebuilt-up areas increased by 5.3 percent from 2000 to 2009. Within the municipalityof Oslo, the population increased from 504,000 to 573,000 during the same period,whereas the built-up zone increased only very slightly from 133 to 136 km2. Thisimplies an 11 percent population density increase within the municipality of Oslofrom 2000 to 2009.50

Compared to Oslo’s development in the postwar period until the early 1990s,and also compared to current urban development in most European cities, Oslo hasmanaged to combine high growth in population and building stock with lowencroachments on natural and cultivated areas and moderate traffic growth. Judgedagainst European ideals for sustainable urban development, Oslo can thus beconsidered as a case of ‘‘best practice.’’ In 2003, Oslo received the EuropeanSustainable City Award in competition with 60 other cities*yet another indicationof a city showing a high environmental awareness in its planning and development.

Still, even ‘‘the best pupil in the class’’ of European cities has not been able toobtain more than a partial decoupling between the growth in building stock andnegative environmental consequences. The construction of new buildings*beyondwhat is necessary to compensate for old buildings being torn down*implies anincrease in the building stock that has to be heated, lit, and ventilated, all of whichincrease energy use. Increasing the building stock also means a need for buildingmaterials and land for building sites. Although high-density urban developmentreduces the conversion of natural areas into building sites, especially when channelinga high share of the construction to ‘brownfield’ sites, urban densification is unlikelyto take place without some negative effects on vegetation and ecosystems. Between1990 and 2002, for example, the green areas within the urban area of themunicipality of Oslo were reduced by 7 percent in order to make space for newkindergartens or schools in districts that became more densely populated. Moreover,as densification proceeds in areas that can be developed with small negativeenvironmental impacts, such area reserves will be exhausted. Further growth in thebuilding stock must then take place in areas where the construction implies a loss ofnature or agricultural land. An important case in point is that many of the urbantransformation sites that have made it possible to construct new buildings withoutmaking encroachments on natural areas or farmland have been made availablebecause manufacturing industries have moved from Oslo (like most other cities inaffluent countries) to poor countries where labor is cheaper and environmental

50Statistics Norway, Land Cover and Population in Urban Areas, online at: http://statbank.ssb.no/

statistikkbanken/, accessed June 2009.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

regulations are lax. The partial decoupling between growth in the building stock andnegative environmental consequences that has been achieved in some European citieshas therefore been conditioned on prior global-scale relocation processes resulting inlarge encroachments on nature in newly industrialized developing countries.

The possibility for densification on previous industrial sites made vacant becauseof the moving of manufacturing industries to countries with lower wages is anexample of picking the ‘‘low-hanging fruits,’’ where a reduction of environmentalimpacts per unit produced (e.g., dwellings or office space) can be obtained relativelyeasily. At the same time, moving production facilities abroad usually contributes toreduced consumption of energy and raw materials in the country from which thefactories are moved. The (spatially delimited) decoupling resulting from such pickingof ‘‘low-hanging fruits’’ and export of polluting, energy-intensive and land-consuming industries to poor countries is, however, temporary. After some decades,no more polluting industries will be left to out-locate, and the technologically andsocially easiest achievable efficiency gains will already have been made. Thesecircumstances are probably a part of the explanation why some recent studies havefound the Environmental Kuznets Curve in affluent countries to follow an N-shaperather than the predicted inverted U-shape.

In countries such as Denmark and Norway, the residential floor space per capitahas doubled since 1970 (Figure 1). According to the above-mentioned report fromthe Nordic Council of Ministers, the average energy consumption per dwelling inNorway increased by 35 percent from 1960 to 1990, despite the fact that newresidences built during that time were equipped with better insulation and manyolder residences have been insulated since being built. In addition, the averagehousehold size was reduced significantly, resulting in a much higher growth in thenumber of dwellings than in the number of inhabitants. The energy use per capitathus nearly doubled in the period.51

This is an illustrative example of how a technical environmental improvement,namely energy-saving heat insulation, can be more than outweighed by increases inconsumption. Even with strong priority given to more environmentally friendlyhousing types and patterns of development, more and more radical eco-efficiencyfactors would be necessary in order to keep pace with a steadily increasing floor spaceper capita.

Based on similar case studies in the transport sector, the forestry sector, and thefood supply chain, the Nordic Council of Ministers concluded that it is possible tohead towards Factor 4 and 10 targets. It was, however, not possible to reach thetargets of Factor 4 in 2030 and Factor 10 in 2050 without considerable changes inindividual and social values as well as regulatory regimes. For example, the Factor 4and 10 goals were not considered achievable without substantial changes in

51Nordic Council of Ministers, 1999, op. cit.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

preferences related to the environment in the service and mobility expected from thetransport system and in the way production, consumption, and daily life areorganized.53 In particular, the prospects of decoupling economic growth from thenegative environmental consequences of increasing transport do not seem optimistic.Through its compact urban development, improvements in the public transportsystem, and the presence of a road toll ring around the inner parts of the city, Oslomanaged to limit traffic growth to 25 percent during the period 1992�2005,compared to 34 percent for the country as a whole (where the population growth ratewas much lower than in Oslo).54 This achievement still only implies a partialdecoupling between economic growth and traffic growth when calculated on a percapita basis. Among fifteen E.U. countries, passenger traffic volumes in the 1990sgrew at a rate slightly lower than the GDP rate in six countries, followed GDPgrowth in five countries, and exceeded it in four countries. CO2 emissions fromtransport show a similar pattern, with emissions growing at rates lower than GDPgrowth only in six countries.55 Although vehicle technologies have improved, carshave on average become heavier, have more motor power, and drive longer annualdistances.

As we have seen, decoupling growth in the building stock from negativeenvironmental consequences is difficult to obtain, even in a society and a period

Residential floor area per capita (m2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Figure 1. Housing is a sector where it may prove very difficult to obtain 4 or 10 factors ofreduction in the environmental load per new dwelling. The diagram shows the growth inresidential floor area per inhabitant in Norway during the period from 1960 to 2007.Summer houses, cabins, etc. are not included.52

52Sources: Sarita Bartlett, The Evolution of Norwegian Energy Use from 1950 to 1991, SSB Reports 93/21,

Statistics Norway, Oslo, 1993; Inge Røpke, ‘‘Forbrug,’’ in John Holten-Andersen, et al. (eds.), Dansknaturpolitik - viden og vurderinger (Copenhagen: The Danish Nature Council, 2000); Statistisk Arbok 2007,

Statistics Norway, Oslo, online at: http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/folkemengde/arkiv/tab-2007-03-08-

01.html, accessed June 2008; Boligstatistikk, Table 7, Statistics Norway, Oslo, online at: http://www.ssb.no/

emner/10/09/boligstat/tab-2007-09-04-07.html, accessed June 2008. Photograph by the authors.53Nordic Council of Ministers, 1999, op. cit.54Municipality of Oslo, Kommuneplan 2008. Oslo mot 2025. [Municipal Plan 2008. Oslo towards 2025], 2007.55Petri Tapio, ‘‘Towards a Theory of Decoupling: Degrees of Decoupling in the E.U. and the Case of Road

Traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001,’’ Transport Policy, Vol. 12, 2005, pp. 137�151.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

where such decoupling has been high on the political agenda. Continued GDPgrowth could still be compatible with environmental sustainability if the economicgrowth took place within other sectors than the building sector. This would requireconsiderably increased growth within these remaining sectors in order to maintainthe overall growth rate, since the building sector accounts for a considerable part ofthe GDP growth in most countries. Therefore slower growth in the building (orhousing) sector would otherwise easily lead to dwindling economic growth*a factclearly demonstrated by the role that reduced demand for new dwellings played intriggering the latest financial crisis in the U.S.A. In Norway, the item ‘‘residences,lighting, and space heating’’ accounted for 29 percent of household expenditures in2007.56 However, in several other sectors, similar difficulties in achieving asufficiently high degree of decoupling are likely to occur. This especially applies tothe transportation sector, where CO2 emissions as well as other environmentalimpacts have increased steadily in all European countries during the latest decade inspite of the Kyoto Protocol obligation to reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions 8percent (compared to the 1990 level) within the E.U. by 2010. It should be notedthat the above-mentioned figures on the degree of coupling or decoupling betweenGDP growth and CO2 emissions do not include maritime traffic and air trafficbetween the E.U. and the rest of the world. Ship and air traffic are calculated intoGDP figures, and they have both grown at higher-than-average rates, particularlyinternational shipping, which makes a significant contribution to GDP growth.

Can Changing Consumption Patterns Make Limitations onConsumption Volumes Unnecessary?

Substituting material consumption where the input of material resources is lowcompared to the economic value has been mentioned as a way of sustainingeconomic growth while avoiding its adverse environmental effects. Replacing energy-and material-intensive types of consumption with consumption of arts and serviceshas been mentioned as such an example: If I spend my money on expensive artinstead of going for a spring holiday trip to Australia, the environmental load permoney spent will be reduced. But how will the owner of the gallery where I buyexpensive paintings use the income from these sales? Maybe he will spend the moneyon a 4-wheel drive SUV or a trip on a cruise liner. Thus, in order for substitution tobring about a degree of decoupling sufficient to make economic growthenvironmentally sustainable, it must take place among most members of society,not only among a few environmental enthusiasts. The question then immediatelyarises: Can art and personal care provide bases for eternal economic growth? The factthat the day and night consist of only 24 hours may pose a limit: how many novelscan one person read during a given time, how many movies or art exhibitions can shetake in, and how often would she like to have her hair styled?

56Statistics Norway, ‘‘Focus on Household Consumption: Figures from the Survey of Expenditure,’’ online at:

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/05/02/forbruk_en/, accessed May 2009.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Moreover, the resource consumption within the service sector*often describedas less environmentally stressful*is perhaps not so low after all. Basically, almost allkinds of services represent the results of human labor in connection with some capitalasset. Any increase in service activities in order to obtain economic gains would needto be performed without any increase in these service-oriented capital assets if theecological requirements were to be met.57 Many of these service businesses are quitetransport-intensive. The food and beverages served in a restaurant are, for example,often imported from far corners of the world. Even though buying expensive wine ata restaurant ties up money that might have been used to buy gasoline, and thealcoholic content of the wine means that you cannot drive home by car from therestaurant, it is not obvious that the overall environmental load will be lower than ifyou take the car to the cinema in the evening.58

The so-called new industries come equipped with a far heavier resource loadthan is commonly thought. For example, the microchip is often considered anoutstanding example of dematerialization since both the economic value and its user-value is high, whereas the weight is minimal. However, the production of suchcomplex and highly organized systems as microprocessors involves a mechanism*termed ‘‘secondary materialization’’*that works in the opposite direction ofdematerialization. Secondary materialization is the apparent tendency for evermore complex products to require increasing amounts of secondary materials andenergy in order to make possible the lower level of entropy that characterizes themcompared to traditional commodities. The production of a microchip with a weightof 2 grams, for example, requires more than one-and-a-half kilograms of fossilenergy, 72 grams of chemical substances, 32 liters of water, and 700 grams ofnitrogen and other gases.59 Computers, printers and other electronic consumer itemsas well as microchips are also increasingly short-lived as new and upgraded modelsmake older models both incompatible with network facilities and difficult to repairin the event of breakdown. Thus, some of the core material tools of allegedlyenvironmentally benign knowledge industries have a very heavy ecological rucksack.

Scientific work is also increasingly based on heavily polluting international airtravel.60 Moreover, new scientific knowledge often facilitates extended materialconsumption, for example, through technological development.

57Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1971).58Karl G. Høyer and Carlo Aall, ‘‘Miljø- og bærekraftindikatorer,’’ [Environment and Sustainability

Indicators], VF-rapport 13/97, Western Norway Research Center, Sogndal, 1997.59Eric D. Williams, Robert U. Ayres, and Miriam Heller, ‘‘The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip: Energy and Material

Use in the Production of Semiconductor Devices,’’ Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 36, 2002,

pp. 5504�5510.60Karl G. Høyer and Petter Næss, ‘‘Conference Tourism: A Problem for the Environment, as well as for

Research?’’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9, 2001, pp. 451-470; Claus Lassen, ‘‘Den mobiliserede

arbejder,’’ [The Mobilized Worker], Ph.D. thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 2005.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

In a growth-oriented economy, the lower flows of energy and other resourcesmade possible by higher efficiency tend to rebound to higher levels because of thequest of the economy for higher flows.61 Such rebound effects also include increasedenvironmental loads from other activities made possible as a result of reducing anenvironmentally harmful activity. In the context of urban development, someauthors have claimed that residents living in dwellings requiring little energy forspace heating/cooling and in areas where the need for motorized travel is low may usethe money thus saved on other, equally or more environmentally damagingactivities.62 Indeed, correlations have been found between inner-city living andsummerhouse ownership and holiday flights.63 Even though there is hardly anycausal mechanism inducing inner-city residents to make more flights, the evidencesuggests that the ‘‘environmental vices’’ may be more or less constant, depending firstand foremost on the purchasing power of each individual. Needless to say, this posesa huge challenge to the dematerialization strategy: Unless you manage todematerialize all products, services, and activities of society simultaneously, reducedconsumption within one field is likely to be exceeded by increased consumption inanother field, especially if purchasing power also continues to increase, as it mustunder conditions of economic growth.

‘‘Doubling Wealth while Halving Resource Use’’*But What willHappen Afterwards?

Accordingly, it may prove exceedingly difficult to achieve a Factor 4improvement in the average eco-efficiency for all sectors of society. Given an annualgrowth rate of 3.5 percent (as recommended by the Brundtland Commission for theindustrial countries),64 production will be doubled within 20 years. A reduction ofresource consumption and the environmental load per produced unit down to one-fourth must therefore be obtained within this time horizon in order to reach the goalof halving the total annual environmental load. But what will happen afterwards?How long will it be possible to compensate for a continual growth in the volume ofproduction by increasing eco-efficiency?

Those who believe that economic growth can be decoupled from environmentalloads and resource consumption will probably answer that we must become evenmore proficient in the art of dematerialization. But as growth continues over a long

61Jørgen S. Nørgaard, ‘‘Avoiding Rebound Through a Steady-State Economy,’’ forthcoming as Chapter 10 in

Horace Herring and Steve Sorrell (eds.), Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption; Dealing With TheRebound Effect (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).62Bertil Vilhelmson, ‘‘Var dagliga rorlighet: Om resandets utveckling, fordelning och granser’’ [Our Daily

Mobility: On the Development, Distribution and Limits of Traveling], TFB report, Stockholm,

Transportforskningsberedningen, 1990, p. 16; Erling Holden, Achieving Sustainable Mobility: Everyday andLeisure-time Travel in the E.U. (Aldershot, U.K./Burlington, U.S.A: Ashgate, 2007).63Holden, ibid.; Næss, 2006b, op. cit.64World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, op. cit.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

time span, quite dramatic reduction factors will be needed in order to preventresource consumption and environmental load from increasing. Even with a moremoderate growth rate, for example 2.1 percent per year (similar to the growthexperienced in West European countries in recent years until the current financialcrisis), the world’s total production would be eight times higher after 100 years, 64times higher after 200 years. And after 500 years? The absurdity of these examplesillustrates how obviously untenable it is to believe that exponential growth inconsumption and production can continue infinitely without running into ecologicallimits.65 The dogma of the possibility of decoupling growth in production andconsumption from exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradationis therefore not valid, at least not long-term.66

The belief in limitless economic growth is a consequence of the separation ofmainstream economics from any material context, illustrating the ‘‘autistic’’ characterof the dominant parts of the discipline, where the axiomatic assumptions are, so tospeak, immune to any corrective inputs from other sciences.67 In recent decades, thisextremely anthropocentric view has gained support from certain radical socialconstructionist positions within social science, according to which there is nomaterial nature outside discourse.68 In contrast, our position is that environmentalproblems like global warming, resource depletion, pollution, and losses ofbiodiversity and ecosystem integrity are really existing in the sense that they reflectchanges in the physical world, as distinct from being solely the results of society’sdiscourses on the environment. Although it requires human interpretation andvaluation to define something as a problem, the ‘‘somethings’’ characterized asenvironmental problems exist independently of society’s discourse about them.Ecosystems will not recover their integrity merely because we stop talking aboutecosystem destabilization as a problem. Instead, the social order is, as stated by thephilosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, ‘‘embedded and conditioned by the naturalorder from which it is emergent and on which it in turns acts back.’’69

65Although economic growth is usually measured and discussed in terms of growth rates (i.e., annual

percentages of increase in the volume of production), growth can of course also be non-exponential. Linear

growth (i.e. with constant annual increases in wealth) would imply that the time horizons for the necessary

dematerialization factors would be postponed. Such linear growth would, however, imply a steady fall in the

rate of profit and thus make capitalist competition even more fierce and crisis-prone. Moreover, even a linear or

reduced growth will run into ecological limits, especially since the global ‘‘ecological footprint’’ is probably

already larger than the ecological carrying capacity, cf. Chris Hails, Living Planet Report 2006 (Gland,

Switzerland: WWF, 2006).66Similar criticism has recently been put forth by the British government’s independent advisory committee on

sustainability issues. See Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth (London: Sustainable Development

Commission, 2009), p. 55.67Edward Fullbrook, ‘‘Broadband versus Narrowband Economics,’’ introductory chapter in Edward Fullbrook

(ed.), A Guide to What’s Wrong With Economics (London: Anthem Press, 2004).68Phil Macnaghten and John Urry, Contested Natures (London: Sage/TCS, 2001); Johannes Dingler, ‘‘The

Discursive Nature of Nature: Towards a Postmodern Concept of Nature,’’ Journal of Environmental Policy andPlanning, Vol. 7, 2005, pp. 209�225.69Roy Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences(London/New York: Routledge, 1998).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conclusion

The impacts of growth within a particular sector, geographic area, or period arecontingent on the combination of a number of causal variables, e.g., local naturalconditions, technologies involved, lifestyles of consumers, environmental regulations,etc. Within a particular spatial and temporal context, changes in these variables mayproduce environmental gains outweighing the increased pressure on the environmentresulting from growth. Nevertheless, there is a causal mechanism by which increasedproduction and consumption creates an increased pressure on the naturalenvironment. Without it, our ecological situation would have been radicallydifferent. In the long run, this is likely to be the dominant mechanism, sincenatural resources (except solar radiation) are finite, and it is impossible to reduce theaverage resource consumption and environmental load per unit produced of allproducts down to zero.

Apart from an extremely high (and highly unrealistic) faith in the ability offuture technological development to solve environmental problems and provide acornucopia of cheap, environmentally friendly energy and material resources, theassumptions about infinite growth seem to be based on a narrow definition of thetypes of natural resources and environmental impacts to which the principle of eco-efficiency improvement applies. For example, in the Nordic Council’s study of theopportunities for eco-efficiency improvement by Factors 4 and 10, neither the studyof transportation nor building and real estate addressed the impacts of the activitiesin these sectors in the form of losses of ecosystems and fragmentation of nature.70

This is an example of the fragmented analyses typical for many studies withinenvironmental economics. For example, economic analyses of the environmentalproblems related to car traffic and the possibilities of reducing these problems oftenfocus on only one part of the problem*typically emissions from the combustion offossil fuels*while disregarding other aspects like the encroachments on nature andurban environments from road construction, the social fragmentation associated withautomotive transport that leads to ‘‘road rage,’’ reduced mobility for people who forsome reason are not able to drive a car, and other issues. Such fragmented analysesare the result of a reductionist approach where the multi-causal situation in opensystems is ignored.71 They tend to result in a relocation of environmental problems(temporally, spatially, and topically) instead of a resolution.72 By contrast, weemphasize here that physical, biological, psychological, psycho-social, socioeco-

70Nordic Council of Ministers, 1999, op. cit.71This criticism is also appropriate to raise against David Schwartzman’s belief in a ‘‘solar utopia’’ as a way to

make sustainable economic growth possible. Apart from the huge infrastructure requirements in order to collect

and distribute solar energy to all relevant and steadily growing purposes, Schwartzmann does not take into

consideration the encroachments on nature and the consumption of raw materials that continual economic

growth would entail, solar-driven or not. David Schwartzman, ‘‘Ecosocialism or Ecocatastrophe,’’ CapitalismNature Socialism, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2009, pp. 6�33.72Karl G. Høyer and Tor Selstad, Den besværlige økologien (Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Regional Policy

Research, 1993).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

nomic, cultural, and normative mechanisms are all essential to the understanding ofenvironmental problems.73

Why is the untenable belief that long-term economic growth can be‘‘decoupled’’ from negative environmental impacts still so widespread? Faircloughcharacterizes economic growth as ‘‘an assumed good’’ and questioning economicgrowth as a value as ‘‘a scandalous thing to do in most contexts in most countries.’’74

According to Bhaskar, a set of ideas can be characterized as ‘‘ideological’’ if the set ofideas is false and at the same time more or less necessary for those whose interestswould have been threatened if the practices among the population had not beenstrongly influenced by this belief.75 Elsewhere, we have discussed the growthcompulsion of capitalism, pointing at several inherent causal mechanisms of thecapitalist economic system which together make economic growth a necessity forsuch a system to maintain its stability.76 Our arguments in the present paper againstthe possibility of an environmentally sustainable, continual economic growthimplicitly point, therefore, at the nature-destroying character of capitalism itself.We cannot pursue this theme in depth here, but will confine ourselves to indicatingsome of its outlines.

We have discussed mainly physical limits to continuous economic growth.Growth has, however, also a number of other negative impacts that could be termedas social and moral limits. For one thing, economic growth has proved inefficient asa means to reduce poverty. Rather, it has contributed to increasing inequality.77

Moreover, several studies indicate that economic growth brings about improvementin the quality of life only up to a point beyond which further growth does notcontribute to more happiness or satisfaction. According to Max-Neef, quality of lifemay even begin to deteriorate if growth continues beyond such a threshold level.78

The implication is a strong case for redistribution of wealth instead of overalleconomic growth as a means to improve human quality of life. To the extent thateconomic growth should be promoted as part of a sustainability strategy, thisshould be confined to the poor countries and regions of the world. In the richcountries, ecological realities call for a replacement of economic growth with de-growth.

73For a discussion of the need for and important implications of a broad, interdisciplinary analysis of different

conditions influencing sustainability within the field of urban development, see Karl G. Høyer and Petter Næss,

‘‘Interdisciplinarity, Ecology and Scientific Theory: The Case of Sustainable Urban Development,’’ Journal ofCritical Realism, Vol. 7, 2008, pp. 5�33.74Norman Fairclough, Language and Globalization (London/New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 58.75Bhaskar, 1998, op. cit., pp. 62�63.76Næss, 2006a, op. cit.77D. Woodward and A. Simms, Growth isn’t Working: The Unbalanced Distribution of Benefits and Costs fromEconomic Growth, Series: Re-thinking Poverty 1 (London: New Economics Foundation, 2006).78Manfred Max-Neef, ‘‘ Economic Growth and Quality of Life: A Threshold Hypothesis,’’ Ecological Economics,Vol. 15, 1995, pp. 115�118; Richard. A. Easterlin, ‘‘Feeding the Illusion of Growth and Happiness: A Reply to

Hagerty and Veenhoven,’’ Social Indicators Research, Vol. 74, 2005, pp. 429�443; Jackson, 2009, op. cit., pp.

32�33.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The ‘‘structural compulsion’’ of increased consumption inherent in theeconomic system and the values and preferences of individuals toward highermaterial standards of living are mutually generative. The pressure to consume createdby mass media and advertising in the capitalist society in order to convince peoplethat they ‘‘need’’ certain consumption goods and ‘‘want’’ to replace those they have isalso, therefore, a structural aspect of the System.79 Further, from a subjectivestandpoint, relative wealth is a significant determinant of happiness undercapitalism.80 In a society characterized by high inequality, the consumption levelsof the affluent make up an important trigger for wishes for increased consumptionamong the less privileged parts of the population. This may be part of theexplanation why studies in Scandinavian countries have shown that the proportion ofinhabitants who say they lack a number of material goods in order to feel happy hasincreased steadily since 1985 in spite of the economic growth and rise in purchasingpower during the period. In Norway, this occurred alongside a halving from 1989 to2001 of the percentage who believed that intensifying the conservation of theenvironment in Norway was a particularly important policy issue.81 Thesedevelopments are sharply at odds with the theory of cultural change from materialistto post-materialist values as affluence levels increase.82 As this theory forms animportant part of the intellectual foundation for the Environmental Kuznets Curvehypothesis, cultural changes are additional arguments against the likelihood ofobtaining environmentally harmless economic growth.

Needless to say, our arguments against the belief that eco-efficiency will besufficient to obtain environmental sustainability do not imply a rejection of theusefulness of efforts to make production and consumption more environmentallyfriendly. Such measures can reduce our generation’s negative impacts on nature andsave human lives, promote health, and protect landscapes and natural amenities.More efficient resource use by means of ‘‘eco-efficiency’’ and ‘‘dematerialization’’ isalso important, because it can give us breathing space to carry out more fundamentalchanges. However, it cannot be a substitute for these changes.

79Johnston, 1989, op. cit.80Peter Bartelmus, ‘‘Economic Growth and Patterns of Sustainability,’’ Paper No. 98, Wuppertal Institute,

Wuppertal, Germany, 1999.81Anders Barstad and Ottar Hellevik, ‘‘Pa vei mot det gode samfunn? Om forholdet mellom ønsket og faktisk

samfunnsutvikling,’’ [On our Way to the Good Society? On the Relationship between Desired and the Actual

Development of Society], Report SA 64, Statistics Norway, Oslo, 2004.82Ronald Inglehart, ‘‘Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values

in 43 Societies,’’ Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, 1995, pp. 57�71.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

09:

36 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Emperor's Green Clothes: Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism

Documents

Transcript of The Emperor's Green Clothes: Growth, Decoupling, and Capitalism