Page 64

One prominent example relates to climate change. It is becoming increasingly apparent that material management, whether involving extraction, transport, processing, or manufacturing, can be highly energy intensive. For instance, the mining and metal industry accounted for 7.5 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, with the vast majority of this originating in coal or other fossil energy sources3. The mitigation opportunity provided by resource efficiency is clear; finished metals produced from recycled scrap are highly substitutable for their primary equivalents, and also require considerably less energy to produce (Figure 1).One recent OECD report – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and The Potential for Mitigation from Materials Management within OECD Countries – recasts emissions according to whether or not they arise in activities involving materials management4. The conclusion, that such activities account for 55 to 65 per cent of national emissions in the countries studied, further highlights the role that resource efficiency could play in reducing emissions. This idea is furthered in a recent publication – Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications – by the UNEP International Resource Panel. This assessment concludes that ‘effective resource efficiency policies and ambitious global action on climate change could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 74 per cent by 2050 relative to 2015 levels.’DECOUPLING HAS TAKEN PLACE, BUT ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT IS POSSIBLEHistory illustrates the possibility of decoupling economic growth from natural resource use. The material intensity of the global economy has lessened significantly relative to several decades ago; one kilogramme of natural resource inputs generates 30 per cent more economic value in real terms than it did in 1980 (Figure 2). This has been one consequence of several emerging mega-trends including: improvements in production efficiency via technological progress, the emergence of a global services sector that is relatively independent of material inputs, and the expansion of the secondary material capture and recovery activities. Today, there remain two key areas of concern. First, the relative decoupling observed in many G7 and OECD countries has mostly been due to the off-shoring of resource intensive industries. While the production system in the developed world has become less material intensive, this has been at least partially offset by increased imports of material rich manufactures from the global south. In sum, resource consumption in many developing countries continues to closely track economic output5.Second, absolute levels of global natural resource extraction are growing strongly despite the existence of relative decoupling (Figure 3). In 2013, global consumption of mineral and metal ores, fossil fuels, and biomass amounted to 85 billion tonnes6; twice as much as in 1980, and a ten-fold increase relative to the start of the 20th century. By 2050, an expected global population of around 9 billion, along with significant improvements in the standard of living of those in developing countries, could mean that the size of the global economy will triple7. If the historic rate of decoupling is not improved upon, it is likely that annual resource extraction will double; an outcome that would be inconsistent with sustainable development, as well as with our commitments on climate. Figure 1. Relative energy (left) and carbon (right) intensity of primary (from mineral ore) and secondary (from recycled metal scrap) metal productionFigure 2. Global decoupling of economic output and material extraction: 1980 – 2010Source: International Bureau of Recycling (2008), Report on the Environmental Benefits of RecyclingNote: Material extraction = Domestic Extraction Used (DEU). Material consumption = Domestic Material Consumption (DMC). Source: OECD, 2015: Material Resources, Productivity, and the Environment064 GLOBAL VOICES