So while it is commonly argued that environmental pollution drops once certain
thresholds of income are reached (the famous Kuznet’s curve) this cannot be
documented in such meta studies. Instead they bring to the fore structural questions
that will become vital in the SDG agenda, e.g., which development model can claim
to be sustainable? Surely not those whose MFs overshoot what would be a fair
share of the globally available resources by a factor of five to ten?
This is what Stefan Bringezu, member of the UNEP International Resource
Panel, found when undertaking a per-capita calculation of fair shares of all natural
resources. A “potential sustainability corridor” would be reached by 2050 if the
Total Material Consumption (TMC) of abiotic or non-renewable resources lay
between 6 and 12 tons per person, the TMC of biotic or renewable resources below
2 tons per person, and the Raw Material Consumption (RMC) of used biotic and
abiotic materials between 3 and 6 tons per person. He concludes that “[F]or policy,
a ‘10-2-5 target triplet’ can provide orientation, when the three indicators are
assigned values of 10, 2, and 5 t/person, respectively” (Bringezu 2015: 25). To put
these numbers into perspective: for rich countries they mean a reduction of 40–
90 % in each of the indicators based on 2014 use levels (ibid.: 42–45).
We see that before decoupling strategies can be called successful, their calculations and indicators need to tell the true story behind any Green Growth path,
especially for a global agenda. The OECD as well as the EU have come around to
expressing the limitations of DMC but have not accepted absolute targets for TMR
as Bringezu suggests.
But why are natural scientists so concerned with defining a sustainability corridor or operating space? Because market prices can only tell the truth about social
and environmental impact when these are realistically estimated. If an estimate is
undertaken with a mechanical engineering mind-set it will look very different from
one undertaken with an embedded systems view. According to the latter, ecosystems already risk losing the stable and resilient environmental characteristics to
which humanity is accustomed. This is what the term ‘Anthropocene’ stands for:
the 10,000 benign years of the Holocene have been ended by human interference
with Earth’s reproductive processes. This earth system science shows us that if we
extract from the planet all that is technologically and economically feasible to
harvest, it will be far too much for the planet to sustain. Price signals come too late
unless caps for maximum exploitation are defined.
The research agenda on ‘Planetary Boundaries’ aims to avoid ecosystem cycles
or reproduction being ‘tipped out’ of dynamic equilibrium. Twenty-six scientists
published an article on Planetary Boundaries in the journal Nature in 2009 to
highlight the fact that three out of nine central dimensions of Earth’s productive
processes were already in a state of overexploitation: namely CO 2 and nitrogen
cycles, and the rate of biodiversity loss (Rockström et al. 2009). The title dovetails
well with the mainstream image of nature limiting human growth aspirations. Yet,
the article is a plea to understand these boundaries and to align human activity with
them. This is what the subtitle “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity” means
(Table 3.3).
90
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
thresholds of income are reached (the famous Kuznet’s curve) this cannot be
documented in such meta studies. Instead they bring to the fore structural questions
that will become vital in the SDG agenda, e.g., which development model can claim
to be sustainable? Surely not those whose MFs overshoot what would be a fair
share of the globally available resources by a factor of five to ten?
This is what Stefan Bringezu, member of the UNEP International Resource
Panel, found when undertaking a per-capita calculation of fair shares of all natural
resources. A “potential sustainability corridor” would be reached by 2050 if the
Total Material Consumption (TMC) of abiotic or non-renewable resources lay
between 6 and 12 tons per person, the TMC of biotic or renewable resources below
2 tons per person, and the Raw Material Consumption (RMC) of used biotic and
abiotic materials between 3 and 6 tons per person. He concludes that “[F]or policy,
a ‘10-2-5 target triplet’ can provide orientation, when the three indicators are
assigned values of 10, 2, and 5 t/person, respectively” (Bringezu 2015: 25). To put
these numbers into perspective: for rich countries they mean a reduction of 40–
90 % in each of the indicators based on 2014 use levels (ibid.: 42–45).
We see that before decoupling strategies can be called successful, their calculations and indicators need to tell the true story behind any Green Growth path,
especially for a global agenda. The OECD as well as the EU have come around to
expressing the limitations of DMC but have not accepted absolute targets for TMR
as Bringezu suggests.
But why are natural scientists so concerned with defining a sustainability corridor or operating space? Because market prices can only tell the truth about social
and environmental impact when these are realistically estimated. If an estimate is
undertaken with a mechanical engineering mind-set it will look very different from
one undertaken with an embedded systems view. According to the latter, ecosystems already risk losing the stable and resilient environmental characteristics to
which humanity is accustomed. This is what the term ‘Anthropocene’ stands for:
the 10,000 benign years of the Holocene have been ended by human interference
with Earth’s reproductive processes. This earth system science shows us that if we
extract from the planet all that is technologically and economically feasible to
harvest, it will be far too much for the planet to sustain. Price signals come too late
unless caps for maximum exploitation are defined.
The research agenda on ‘Planetary Boundaries’ aims to avoid ecosystem cycles
or reproduction being ‘tipped out’ of dynamic equilibrium. Twenty-six scientists
published an article on Planetary Boundaries in the journal Nature in 2009 to
highlight the fact that three out of nine central dimensions of Earth’s productive
processes were already in a state of overexploitation: namely CO 2 and nitrogen
cycles, and the rate of biodiversity loss (Rockström et al. 2009). The title dovetails
well with the mainstream image of nature limiting human growth aspirations. Yet,
the article is a plea to understand these boundaries and to align human activity with
them. This is what the subtitle “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity” means
(Table 3.3).
90
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …