Consumption and production

2.3.5.1 We are running out of natural resources

One major challenge associated with moving toward sustainability in production and consumption activities is the high and rapidly growing use of natural resources (e.g., materials, energy or land) required in the process. Without dealing with this issue, sustainability cannot be attained, and neither can the relevant SDGs. The focus in this section is on other materials (raw materials, their transformations into 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Angola Mozambique DR Congo Sierra Leone

Zambia Guinea Keny

a

Gambia Tanzania Ethiopia Nigeri

a

Chad Ghan

a Cameroon Cote d'Ivoire Senegal Togo

Uganda Cong

o Burkina Faso Comoros

Malawi Namibi

a Liberia Gabon Mali

Rwanda Burundi

Zimbabwe Benin Hai Dominican Rep. Guatemala Peru

Honduras Colombia Myanmar Pakistan Afghanistan Philippines India Nepal

Cambodia Tajikistan Bangladesh Indonesi

a Yemen Egypt Jordan

Sub-Saharan Africa Lan America

and Carribeans Asia Middle

Eastand North Africa Difference in number of children born to women with higher educaon and to women without educaon Total ferlity rate

Figure 2.22. Difference in the number of children born to women with a higher education and to women without education and total fertility rates. Selected less developed countries, since 2010. Source: Goujon (2018).

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

More developed countries

Populaon of compulsory schooling age (5-14) Populaon of upper secondary school age (15-17) Populaon of post-secondary schooling age (18-23)

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Least developed countries

Populaon of compulsory schooling age (5-14) Populaon of upper secondary school age (15-17) Populaon of post-secondary schooling age (18-23)

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Less developed countries

Populaon of compulsory schooling age (5-14) Populaon of upper secondary school age (15-17) Populaon of post-secondary schooling age (18-23)

Figure 2.23. Absolute population (in thousands) of schooling age. Compulsory education (5-14), upper-secondary education (15-17), and post-secondary education in more developed countries, less developed countries (excluding LDCs) and LDCs. Source: Provided by courtesy of Anne Goujon / IIASA. Data Source: UNDESA (2017).

intermediate and final products, as well as wastes, emissions and recycled materials), but energy and water are also considered from their resource efficiency dimension, whereas land is dealt with in more detail in other sections. Methods to trace these processes include material flow analysis (MFA) developed in Ecological Economics, Industrial Ecology and Social Ecology (Krausmann et al., 2017a; Haberl et al., 2016; Pauliuk and Hertwich, 2015; Fischer‐Kowalski et al., 2011; Ayres and Simonis, 1994). High use of physical resources is associated with depletion of non-renewable resources, over-stretching of natural systems to generate renewable resources (e.g., biomass/

land use), pollution, area demand (e.g., of infrastructures) and many other potential unsustainable systemic effects discussed below.

There exist many strategies to tackle the problem of natural resources by raising the efficiency with which materials are used, a strategy often called “eco-efficiency”, “material efficiency”

or “decoupling of physical and monetary growth” (Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011; Steinberger and Krausmann, 2011).

Essentially these efforts aim to raise the output of services and products while reducing the volume of raw materials required, and hence the adverse sustainability impacts of rising raw material use. This would require more efficient production systems (agriculture, industry, etc.), but also more efficient systems to convert physical products (e.g., final energy) into the required services (e.g., comfortable living spaces) and might even reconcile GDP growth with reduced resource use and environmental impacts.

However, even though material efficiency has generally been increasing over the last century, and in particular the last few decades, the extraction and use of raw materials is growing unabatedly, although now at a lower rate than GDP. This is a phenomenon called “relative decoupling” (Steinberger et al., 2013; Worrel et al., 2016). Many scholars today lean towards believing that eco-efficiency, although it has its undoubted benefits, will not be sufficient to “bend the curve” – in other words, the “gospel of eco-efficiency” may be good, but most likely not good enough (Martinez-Alier, 2003).

2.3.5.2 Developing a new approach to resource use measurement

Huge efforts have been expended to quantify and analyze material flows and their relation to GDP, technology development and other important drivers. This is rendered difficult by the fact that a substantial part of these resource flows serves to build up socioeconomic material stocks (often called

“in-use material stocks”) such as buildings, infrastructures, production capacities, machinery, etc. Indeed, the share of all material inputs (including food, fossil fuels, etc.) humanity puts in such in-use material stocks has increased from around 20%

in 1900 to over 50% today (Krausmann et al., 2017b).

Including stocks into the picture is hugely important for a host of reasons, for example: 1) stocks transform resources into services. For example, crude oil or electricity does not

allow one to go from A to B, only when coupled with a suitable infrastructure (rails, railway stations, trains, etc. respectively refineries, roads and cars) they can provide the service. 2) Building up, maintaining and using stocks requires very substantial amounts of materials. 3) Stocks create dynamics and lock-ins that last long and are difficult to change, e.g., transport infrastructures (e.g., railroads vs. highways, heating of buildings, transport demand resulting from settlement patterns vs. location of workplaces, etc.). 4) Stocks form structures influencing social organization, the organization of production and consumption activities (including work etc.), mobility of people and goods, and thereby shape social institutions, practices and values.

Moreover, most such stocks result from investment decisions that are negotiated in the social, political and economic arena, so they are in principle amenable to be changed through strategic decisions (Chen and Graedel, 2015; Hertwich et al., 2015; Weisz et al., 2015; Pauliuk and Müller, 2014).

2.3.5.3 But this perspective only sheds a starker light

Including stocks and services in the analysis of the societal metabolism, respectively the physical economy, allows us to substantially enlarge and strengthen the current strategies focused primarily or even exclusively on “decoupling”. It results in what has recently been called “stock-flow-service nexus”

(Haberl et al., 2017; Weisz et al., 2015; Pauliuk and Müller, 2014).

This approach aims to provide sufficient high-quality services to human societies in relevant domains (e.g., food, energy, shelter, mobility, communication & data services, etc.) while reducing flows of material and energy through better stocks (more efficient, based on more sustainable materials, resource-saving spatial patterns, etc.). This approach recognizes that indicators such as GDP may be as much a problem as a solution (Fleurbaey, 2009), and therefore maximizing GDP might not be compatible with a sustainability transformation (Kallis et al., 2012; Van den Bergh and Kallis, 2012). This approach is closely linked to discussions on how to achieve a good living for all within planetary boundaries (O’Neill et al., 2018; Rao and Min, 2018;

Brand-Correa and Steinberger, 2017).

Rather than shed a dominantly positive light on current dynamics, this approach also demonstrates limitations of useful and currently prominent strategies to raise eco-efficiency and reduce pressures on resources, for example the circular economy.

As most resource flows end up in stocks, and much of the remainder is used dissipatively, e.g., for food and energy, the potential to close material loops or cycles is limited (Haas et al., 2015), at least as long as material stocks are growing in 1:1 unison with GDP, which has been the case over the last century (Krausmann et al., 2017b). This results in huge challenges for sustainability transformations (Görg et al., 2017).

2.3.5.4 Efficiency potentials in resource use

Figure 2 .24 presents global efficiency cascades and improvement potentials for energy, water, and using steel as an example for materials as well.

Within the context of energy, the final demand and subsequent conversion to useful energy and energy services have long been identified both as the least efficient part of the global energy system and as having the largest improvement potentials.

Second, improvements in end-use efficiency leverage significant upstream savings in energy resources. Conversion efficiency from primary to useful energy in the global energy system is currently around 40% (Figure 2.24, panel a). This means that one unit of useful energy conserved through efficiency improvements translates into a reduction of 2.5 units of primary energy. Nakićenović et al. (1990) extended traditional energy efficiency calculations to include energy-service provision.

The conversion efficiency of total primary energy inputs into energy services delivered is conservatively estimated at 14%

on average for the global energy system in 2020. This means that improving energy efficiency at the service level by one unit yields a reduction in primary resource requirements by a factor of seven.

Lastly, as demonstrated by Riahi et al. (2012), improved end-use efficiency and lower demands also yield significant upstream supply-side benefits, increasing resilience and reliability of supply, and allowing more discretionary choice (failure tolerance) among often contested supply-side options such as nuclear or carbon capture and storage.

A comparable efficiency cascade for water (Figure 2.24, panel b) based on irrigation water embodied in global food production and consumption yields a comparable conclusion. While the global irrigation water use efficiency of some 40% (Sadras et al., 2011) is relatively modest, losses at the end-use part of the food chain estimated at 43% efficiency (Lundqvist et al., 2008) are equally high, yielding an aggregated embodied water for food systems efficiency (from farm to plate) of 17%. These losses in water embodied in farm products arise from conversion losses in animal protein production, food losses in food retail and distribution and - above all - in food waste at end-use consumers, estimated to amount up to 30% in industrialized countries by Gustafsson et al. (2011).

The case of steel (Figure 2.24, panel c) also confirms above conclusions: Globally only 47% of all primary iron and steel scrap end up as steel in purchased products (Allwood and Cullen, 2012) and only 13% of primary material inputs come from re-utilized post-use steel scrap (Allwood and Cullen, 2012).³

Any physical loss of resources due to processing, production, or consumption waste not only increases the overall environmental footprint of consumption it also translates into higher costs.

Estimates (Ekins et al., 2016) of economic savings across a range of natural resources (energy, water, food, materials) are substantial estimated to total US$3,704 billion by 2030. Around 54% (US$1,511 billion) of the itemized specific savings (US$2,812 billion) accrue at the level of end-users and consumers (Ekins et al., 2016). Improving end use and consumption efficiency under a “responsible consumption” paradigm thus has not just environmental and resource benefits, but also economic

3 Data for global steel production in 2016, updating (Jonathan Cullen, pers. comm.) Allwood, Cullen et al. (2012).

ones. These are particularly salient for improving the material wellbeing of the poor where efficiency and waste minimization allow to maximize the social benefits of material wellbeing while minimizing costs and resource use.

Primary Energy Final Energy Useful Energy Service 511 EJ

Ore and scrap input Crude steel Steel in purchased products

Recovered post-use scrap

Figure 2.24. Panel a (top) Energy conversion cascades in the global energy sys-tem. Lines show percent of extracted primary energy delivered as final energy, useful energy, and services respectively for three end-use sectors (industry, resi-dential & commercial buildings, transport) and totals for the whole energy sys-tem in 2020. Energy flows exclude non-energy feedstock uses of energy (labeled as N-E). Total energy flows (EJ) are shown at each stage of the energy conversion cascade. Service efficiencies are first-order (conservative) estimates based on Nakićenović et al. (1990) and Nakićenović et al. (1993). Panel b (middle) Irriga-tion water embodied in global food: resource efficiency cascade (percent of ori-ginal irrigation water remaining in respective step of conversion chain). Source:

First-order estimates based on Lundqvist et al. (2008) and Sadras et al. (2011).

Panel c (bottom) Materials efficiency shown for the example of steel from pri-mary raw material inputs (iron ore and steel scrap) to final retail, and recovery of post-use steel (scrap). The difference to primary inputs are comprised of ad-ditions to the material stock in form of buildings and infrastructures but also due to material losses, part of which may be recoverable in future. Source: up-dated with 2016 data (J. Cullen pers. comm.) from Allwood and Cullen (2012);

Fischer‐Kowalski et al. (2011); Ayres and Simonis (1994). Figure provided by courtesy of Arnulf Grubler and Benigna Boza-Kiss.

Im Dokument Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (Seite 60-63)