![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
Should "environmental pressure" be replaced with "environmental damage"? Bmcm ( talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting source from the European Environmental Bureau: [1] -- PJ Geest ( talk) 15:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like several sources are more than 10 years old, in a fast moving domain. In particular definitions not being centered on just one author (Tim Jackson) might be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneza ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's worth being slightly clearer about what is being decoupled from what in this article.
We know energy cannot really be decoupled from GDP: If energy use rises with GDP then waste heat alone raises the Earth's surface temperature to 100 C in 400 years, and everyone dies several centuries earlier. If energy use does not rise with GDP then someone can easily monopolize the entire energy sector in a free market. We'd expect non-free markets always face similar problems, like if energy were perfectly rationed then material use still matters, or else what does the economy even measure anymore? - https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ - https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/07/limits-to-economic-growth/
We do otoh expect some decoupling of energy aka GDP from CO2 emissions, if only because plants do so, but proponents disingenuously confuse plants with the impossibility of decoupling energy from GDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2001:42:225:90FF:FE6B:D60 ( talk) 01:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The figure File:Absolute-decoupling-Growth-and-falling-emissions-all.png is on-topic, but given the meta-literature reviews - currently used in this Wikipedia article - that find decoupling to be rare and no economy-wide decoupling, it seems unlikely that 25 countries all achieved economy-wide absolute decoupling. There are no details of where the data come from and the analysis is not from a peer-reviewed article.
Any objections to removing the figure (from this article, not from Wikimedia Commons) given the lack of supporting evidence? Boud ( talk) 19:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added the following in the introduction. I am working on the paradigm shift to Degrowth, so this article is very relevant. The inserted text reads as follows:
+++++
However, it is arguable that emission intensity does not adequately reflect the exponential impact on the instability of ecosystems when climate tipping points are passed. During the 2023 World Economic Forum Johan Rockstrom explained that we are now in this context.
It is arguable that economic decoupling defies the scientific insights gained through the I=PAT equation and the Jevons paradox; because, increased GDP results in increases in the three key drivers of environmental damage that were identified as Population size, Affluence, and Technology. This increases the chronic global ecological overshoot that is monitored by the Global Footprint Network. Those who conclude that economic decoupling is not feasible are providing the momentum within the burgeoning Degrowth movement. The decoupling research mentioned below focuses on emission intensity rather than ecological footprint. This is likely to explain how 'decoupling' appeared to take place. Bbwilliams ( talk) 15:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
+++++
The last section is unclear about if we can or cannot decouple. Just wanted to point that out. ManOfDirt ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
Should "environmental pressure" be replaced with "environmental damage"? Bmcm ( talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting source from the European Environmental Bureau: [1] -- PJ Geest ( talk) 15:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like several sources are more than 10 years old, in a fast moving domain. In particular definitions not being centered on just one author (Tim Jackson) might be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneza ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's worth being slightly clearer about what is being decoupled from what in this article.
We know energy cannot really be decoupled from GDP: If energy use rises with GDP then waste heat alone raises the Earth's surface temperature to 100 C in 400 years, and everyone dies several centuries earlier. If energy use does not rise with GDP then someone can easily monopolize the entire energy sector in a free market. We'd expect non-free markets always face similar problems, like if energy were perfectly rationed then material use still matters, or else what does the economy even measure anymore? - https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ - https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/07/limits-to-economic-growth/
We do otoh expect some decoupling of energy aka GDP from CO2 emissions, if only because plants do so, but proponents disingenuously confuse plants with the impossibility of decoupling energy from GDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2001:42:225:90FF:FE6B:D60 ( talk) 01:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The figure File:Absolute-decoupling-Growth-and-falling-emissions-all.png is on-topic, but given the meta-literature reviews - currently used in this Wikipedia article - that find decoupling to be rare and no economy-wide decoupling, it seems unlikely that 25 countries all achieved economy-wide absolute decoupling. There are no details of where the data come from and the analysis is not from a peer-reviewed article.
Any objections to removing the figure (from this article, not from Wikimedia Commons) given the lack of supporting evidence? Boud ( talk) 19:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added the following in the introduction. I am working on the paradigm shift to Degrowth, so this article is very relevant. The inserted text reads as follows:
+++++
However, it is arguable that emission intensity does not adequately reflect the exponential impact on the instability of ecosystems when climate tipping points are passed. During the 2023 World Economic Forum Johan Rockstrom explained that we are now in this context.
It is arguable that economic decoupling defies the scientific insights gained through the I=PAT equation and the Jevons paradox; because, increased GDP results in increases in the three key drivers of environmental damage that were identified as Population size, Affluence, and Technology. This increases the chronic global ecological overshoot that is monitored by the Global Footprint Network. Those who conclude that economic decoupling is not feasible are providing the momentum within the burgeoning Degrowth movement. The decoupling research mentioned below focuses on emission intensity rather than ecological footprint. This is likely to explain how 'decoupling' appeared to take place. Bbwilliams ( talk) 15:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
+++++
The last section is unclear about if we can or cannot decouple. Just wanted to point that out. ManOfDirt ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)