70
M. Conte Grand
According to Tapio (2005, p. 139), there are eight “logical possibilities” (or
concepts) depending on the values of D ε (and e and g). Coupling refers to the situation where D ε is close to 1 (that is equivalent to saying e ∼ =g). When D ε departs from
1, there is decoupling. If D ε < 0 strong decoupling occurs (this means that e and g
have opposite signs), if 0 < D ε < 1 decoupling is weak (this implies that e and g
have the same sign), and if D ε > 1, it is just decoupling (and, again e and g have
the same sign since D ε > 0). In the latter case, when both emissions and economy
change in the same direction, if they increase this is called “expansive,” and when
both variables decrease, it is “recessive.” Hence, the denomination “expansive” or
“recessive” does not come from the value of D ε > 1, but from the sign of g. The label
“negative” is used in all cases when emissions’ intensity increases.
To summarize, there are six relevant cases if we discard the very unlikely occurrences in which emissions, GDP and/or emissions’ intensity rates of change are zero.
Table 1 describes those six scenarios and allows analyzing a couple of interesting
features. First, as it is clear from columns 4 and 5, the different indicators have their
own values to designate the different kinds of possible coupling/decoupling between
emissions and GDP. There are cases for which according to OECD (2002) there is
no decoupling (Rows 3, 5 and 6 of Table 1), and there is decoupling for the Tapio
(2005) index. Second, neither emissions’ intensity decreases nor decoupling (separation between emissions and GDP) are good per se if there are assessed together with
the objective of reducing greenhouse gases. It can happen that emissions separate
from product while emissions increase (separation of both variables and e > 0 in
Rows 2, 3, and 6 of Table 1). And, it can perfectly occur that emissions’ intensity
diminishes at the same time that emissions augment (Row 5 of Table 1, with t < 0
and e > 0).
Qualifying Decoupling: From Best to Worst Cases
Decoupling cases can be qualified. There is no doubt that the best alternative is
strong decoupling, since the economy grows while emissions decrease. Similarly,
the worst possible scenario is the one in which GDP decreases and carbon emissions
increase. However, if there is conflict and one of the dimensions improves (i.e., or
economy increases or emissions decrease), and it is the other way around for the other
variable (while GDP increases, emissions increase or while emissions decrease GDP
decreases, for example), decoupling cases can still be ranked from best to worse
according to two value judgments: prioritize economic growth and put in the second
place the environment, or the other way around.
In Ordering I priority is given to the economy, weak decoupling (GDP increases
and emissions increase less than GDP) is considered better than recessive decoupling
(GDP decreases and emissions decrease more than GDP), but it is the other way
around for Ordering II.
More precisely, as a result of Ordering I the order is: strong, weak, expansive
negative, recessive, weak negative and strong negative decoupling. For the other
M. Conte Grand
According to Tapio (2005, p. 139), there are eight “logical possibilities” (or
concepts) depending on the values of D ε (and e and g). Coupling refers to the situation where D ε is close to 1 (that is equivalent to saying e ∼ =g). When D ε departs from
1, there is decoupling. If D ε < 0 strong decoupling occurs (this means that e and g
have opposite signs), if 0 < D ε < 1 decoupling is weak (this implies that e and g
have the same sign), and if D ε > 1, it is just decoupling (and, again e and g have
the same sign since D ε > 0). In the latter case, when both emissions and economy
change in the same direction, if they increase this is called “expansive,” and when
both variables decrease, it is “recessive.” Hence, the denomination “expansive” or
“recessive” does not come from the value of D ε > 1, but from the sign of g. The label
“negative” is used in all cases when emissions’ intensity increases.
To summarize, there are six relevant cases if we discard the very unlikely occurrences in which emissions, GDP and/or emissions’ intensity rates of change are zero.
Table 1 describes those six scenarios and allows analyzing a couple of interesting
features. First, as it is clear from columns 4 and 5, the different indicators have their
own values to designate the different kinds of possible coupling/decoupling between
emissions and GDP. There are cases for which according to OECD (2002) there is
no decoupling (Rows 3, 5 and 6 of Table 1), and there is decoupling for the Tapio
(2005) index. Second, neither emissions’ intensity decreases nor decoupling (separation between emissions and GDP) are good per se if there are assessed together with
the objective of reducing greenhouse gases. It can happen that emissions separate
from product while emissions increase (separation of both variables and e > 0 in
Rows 2, 3, and 6 of Table 1). And, it can perfectly occur that emissions’ intensity
diminishes at the same time that emissions augment (Row 5 of Table 1, with t < 0
and e > 0).
Qualifying Decoupling: From Best to Worst Cases
Decoupling cases can be qualified. There is no doubt that the best alternative is
strong decoupling, since the economy grows while emissions decrease. Similarly,
the worst possible scenario is the one in which GDP decreases and carbon emissions
increase. However, if there is conflict and one of the dimensions improves (i.e., or
economy increases or emissions decrease), and it is the other way around for the other
variable (while GDP increases, emissions increase or while emissions decrease GDP
decreases, for example), decoupling cases can still be ranked from best to worse
according to two value judgments: prioritize economic growth and put in the second
place the environment, or the other way around.
In Ordering I priority is given to the economy, weak decoupling (GDP increases
and emissions increase less than GDP) is considered better than recessive decoupling
(GDP decreases and emissions decrease more than GDP), but it is the other way
around for Ordering II.
More precisely, as a result of Ordering I the order is: strong, weak, expansive
negative, recessive, weak negative and strong negative decoupling. For the other