Decoupling was first adopted as a policy by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2001 and was subsequently incorporated into OECD’s ‘Green Growth Strategy’ (2011). This was followed by the 6th Environment Action Programme of the European Commission which articulated an aspiration to ‘break the old link between economic growth and environmental damage’. The UNEP (2011) and World Bank were next to hop on the decoupling bandwagon with ideas of ‘green growth’ and ‘green economy’. Gradually, the commitment to decouple became a subject of an ongoing global narrative that continues to set political and economic agendas of countries and alter rules of global trade even today. The pervasive nature of this discourse and the pressing need to adequately address climate change warrants a careful evaluation of the decoupling hypothesis—one that has dominated most, if not all climate actions in the recent past.
Decoupling simply refers to breaking of traditional links between “environmental bads” and “economic goods” (OECD, 2002). It seeks to break the direct and/or incidental impacts of economic activities (such as growth, GDP, consumption and production) on our ecology. Such impacts may include, inter alia, resource depletion, deforestation, emissions, pollution.
For a theory that is as revered as it is, decoupling falters by making bold and callous assertions. The decoupling hypothesis is arguably based on the assumption that economic growth is necessary and thereby limitless. Simultaneously, it assumes that our environment and ecology possess an inherent capacity to sustain and withstand the growing pressures of boundless economic development. These concerns are neither novel nor innovative. Similar concerns were raised by Sicco Mansholt back in 1972 in his letter to the then President of the European Commission. In the letter, he called upon the world to shift away from the unrelenting pursuit of economic growth and greater GDPs, for such an endeavour would naturally lead to a global breakdown. Sicco’s words reverberate even today—especially with scholars such as Parrique and Hickel—who seek to inquire and introspect the assumption of economic growth as being an indispensable and unstoppable undertaking.
Decoupling can be relative or absolute. Relative decoupling means that economic growth and its impact on environmental variables continue to be interconnected, however to a limited extent. On the other hand, absolute decoupling occurs only when the variables of economic growth and environment are completely separated, and the economic activities do not impact the environment in any manner whatsoever.
When it comes to aggregate use of raw materials, the evidence is clear—there is no absolute decoupling of resource use from economic growth. On the contrary, data from the European Environment Bureau show that aggregate resource use is on a global rise. There are some countries such as Australia, Japan, Switzerland that have claimed to have relatively decoupled their economies, however the same remains contested. Researchers such as Moreau and Vuille have argued that the relative decoupling of such economies has only been achieved by shifting of production to foreign jurisdictions. Decoupling in one region of the world is actually leading to re-coupling in another, leading to net zero or even a negative change. Furthermore, the studies also show that a decrease in energy intensity of a nation is often compensated by an increase in the energy embodied in their imports because of which the net energy intensity of the world remains roughly the same.
One of the mechanisms of decoupling and reducing emissions is the use of greener alternatives such as green energy, green vehicles, green fuel etc. Understandably, there is a sustained interest and a global frenzy around green industries. Given the case, it becomes important to look at the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) which is a measure of efficiency of extraction of energy. EROI is the ratio of the quantity of energy extracted from a source to the quantity of energy that was consumed and spent on the extraction process. Decoupling does not necessarily account for the EROI. For instance, shale oil which is often claimed to be an alternative to oil has an EROI of 7:1 (Jessica Lambert, 2014). Drilling shale wells is expensive and leads to rampant degradation of ocean beds. Similarly, the production of batteries for greener electric vehicles puts undue pressure on the extraction of lithium, cobalt, nickel. The promotion of biogas as alternative fuel leads to mass deforestation as has been witnessed in Indonesian rainforests.
A study published in Nature Energy warns that the increasing costs of extracting fossil fuels will cause a “net energy cliff” i.e. when net energy available will decline due to the increasing amounts of “parasitical” energy required in the energy production. Similarly, studies from the University of Leeds claim that the EROI for fossil fuels over a 16-year period and found that at the finished fuel stage, the ratios are much closer to those of renewable energy sources — roughly 6:1, and potentially as low as 3:1 in the case of electricity.
Started off as a noble idea to change the world, decoupling has now essentially been reduced to a statistical and political figment. The case of addressing climate change and rectifying decoupling and its discontents remain necessarily urgent however grossly overlooked. This has also led to the rise and mass acceptance of the ‘Degrowth’ framework which argues to halt economic growth in order to pull economic activities back to a level where it is ecologically sustainable. Proposal of such a massive economic contraction is ambitious, however not unwarranted given the pressing need to turn back the clock.
Anmol Ratan is a Delhi-based lawyer and researcher
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth