Download Dematerialization

Is the economy (de)materializing?
A comparison of Germany, China and Spain
Vincent Moreau
Gregor Meerganz von Medeazza
DEMATERIALIZATION
Reduction in the amount of materials needed for the economic
process, or a reduction in the quantity of material used per unit
of economic output also called “intensity of material use”
Dematerialization debate mainly onset by Limits to Growth
(Meadows and Club of Rome, 1972)
concerns about
• the exhaustion of both material and energy supply
• the assimilative capacity of the environment (sinks)
Hypothesis
Economic and material/energy growth can be delinked
vs.
Economic and material growth are two sides of the same coin
Measures of economic growth
GDP
Economic growth as measured conventionally with GDP at
constant prices is problematic in several ways.
GDP excludes non monetary transactions and negative externalities
Hedonist psychology shows that correlation between GDP and
happiness in the western world no longer holds
→ societal happiness has been declining for the past thirty years
ALTERNATIVE measures of economic growth
ALTERNATIVES:
• Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Daly et al. 1989)
• Genuine Progress Indicator (Redefining Progress 1995)
• Green GDP (El Serafy et al. 1989)
SI = GDP – 2Ca – 1Cu + 1Bu
HAPPINESS
Bhutan’s “Gross National Happiness”
I = (HLY) / (GHG)
(Common, 2005)
PHYSICAL measures of the economic process
ALTERNATIVES - Intensity of material use :
• Ecological Footprint
• Ecological Rucksack
• Material Input per Unit Service (MIPS)
• Material and Energy Flow Analysis (MEFA)
• Domestic Material Consumption (DMC)
• Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
How calculated ?
Boundaries ?
Minimization of such indicators always equivalent to
environmental improvement ?
Dematerialization: an Industrial Ecology’s dream
“conservation” principle replaces “throw-away” culture:
durable products treated as capital assets rather than consumables
Doing more with Less:
Factor 4
Factor 10
Reasonable… but daunting
Gospel of efficiency & Jevons’ paradox
RESULTS: evidence from Germany and China
Domestic Material Consumption for China
30000
Millions of tons
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Domestic Material Consumption for Germany
4500
Millions of tons
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
RESULTS: evidence from Germany and China
Physical trade balance for China
800
Millions of tons
600
400
imports
200
exports
balance
0
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
-200
-400
Physical trade balance for Germany
800
400
Imports
200
Exports
Balance
0
-200
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
Millions of tons
600
-400
Absolute vs. Relative Dematerialization
DMC
(%)
GDP
(% constant 1995 prices)
PTB
(% - 1994 to 2005)
78.5
74
110
Materialization
China
17.6
70.2
1175
Relative
dematerialization
Germany
-11.8
12.1
-17.3
Absolute
dematerialization
Spain
(1980-2000)
Dematerialization should be differentiated in two ways.
Basic needs and material wants
“conspicuous consumption” (Veblen 1899)
“Positional goods” (Hirsch 1976)
Basic needs are shared by everyone and are finite and few
(Max-Neef et al. 1991)
The good news ecologically:
seems possible to actually have more satisfaction with less stuff
Quality of life and happiness tricky to measure and still have no
political value compared to GDP growth
CONCLUSION
•
clear distinction between absolute and relative
dematerialization
CONCLUSION
•
clear distinction between absolute and relative
dematerialization
•
improvements in ratios of materials to GDP (or
energy to GDP) really not relevant since nature
sets absolute limits
CONCLUSION
•
clear distinction between absolute and relative
dematerialization
•
improvements in ratios of materials to GDP (or
energy to GDP) really not relevant since nature
sets absolute limits
•
absolute dematerialization of the economy is
largely a red herring
CONCLUSION
•
clear distinction between absolute and relative
dematerialization
•
improvements in ratios of materials to GDP (or
energy to GDP) really not relevant since nature
sets absolute limits
•
absolute dematerialization of the economy is
largely a red herring
•
physical numeraires such as calories and
kilograms not less reductionist than GDP
CONCLUSION
•
clear distinction between absolute and relative
dematerialization
•
improvements in ratios of materials to GDP (or
energy to GDP) really not relevant since nature
sets absolute limits
•
absolute dematerialization of the economy is
largely a red herring
•
physical numeraires such as calories and
kilograms not less reductionist than GDP
•
new satisfactors of needs must be less material
and energy intensive.
CONCLUSION
•
to generate “environmental space” for the South,
the North must embark on a socially sustainable
degrowth path…
CONCLUSION
•
to generate “environmental space” for the South,
the North must embark on a socially sustainable
degrowth path…
•
…meaning less use of materials and energy while
sustaining and maintaining happiness.
CONCLUSION
•
to generate “environmental space” for the South,
the North must embark on a socially sustainable
degrowth path…
•
…meaning less use of materials and energy while
sustaining and maintaining happiness.
•
economic degrowth remains, however, a
political taboo