The most systematic review of the evidence on decoupling I am aware of is Haberl et al. A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions. There is zero evidence of absolute decoupling at a gobal scale and/or that it can be achieved at a pace to keep us within safe climate change limits.
Respectfully, I think there is some nuance here. My post didn't say absolute decoupling was happening globally. I said it's happening in developed countries. The report in question was in favor of growth for poor countries, but against growth in rich countries. If the rich countries are decoupled then I don't understand why we would oppose growth in them. Poor countries are not decoupled and their growth will increasingly put pressure on the planet. I agree with the report that this is a worthwhile trade and we should help them develop even though it will be bad for the climate.
As Vaden et al. (2020) conclude, after reviewing 179 articles, "in the absence of robust evidence, the goal of decoupling rests partly on faith.”
It seems most of the evidence for absolute decoupling comes from Our World in Data charts.
In any event, decoupling is not ony about emissions, its about all environmental pressures, including material footprint. In regards to the latter, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that developed countries have decoupled their material footprint, quite the opposite.
Haberl et al, the paper you cited, acknowledges it is happening in some countries. In the paper's abstract they say: "Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP from both production- and, weaklier, consumption-based CO2 emissions." The leading degrowth researcher, Jason Hinkel's paper on absolute decoupling acknowledges this as well. They think it is happening too slowly, which I state as a reasonable counterpoint in the article. I briefly looked through the other papers you linked and don't see any smoking guns in those. If you're not going to trust the raw data I presented here OR the papers that you linked, I don't know what to tell you.
First of all, its great that this debate is happening
The conclusions from the Haberl et al. study are clear:
"So far, environment and climate policies have at best achieved relative decoupling between GDP and resource use respectively GHG emissions (Kemp-Benedict 2018, Haberl et al 2019). Exceptions include a group of 18 countries that have reduced CO2 emissions in the last decade(LeQu´ er´ eetal 2019),and a few national cases, most of which are due to specific circumstances that probably should not be generalized (e.g. when falling resource use stems from economic crises; Shao et al 2017)."
Those who promote absolute decoupling as possible, focus only on emissions but this is only a partial analysis and really empties the term of any meaning.
Eschewing material footprint is not decoupling in any true meaning of the term.
Even at its height, the literature shows that examples of absolute decoupling of emissions are very rare, mostly temporary and the result of specific circumstances (deindustrialisation, low economic growth, recession etc) and not specific policy choices. This is not decoupling.
My reading of the literature is that faith in decoupling is more a case of wishful thinking rather than any empirical reality.
The most systematic review of the evidence on decoupling I am aware of is Haberl et al. A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions. There is zero evidence of absolute decoupling at a gobal scale and/or that it can be achieved at a pace to keep us within safe climate change limits.
Respectfully, I think there is some nuance here. My post didn't say absolute decoupling was happening globally. I said it's happening in developed countries. The report in question was in favor of growth for poor countries, but against growth in rich countries. If the rich countries are decoupled then I don't understand why we would oppose growth in them. Poor countries are not decoupled and their growth will increasingly put pressure on the planet. I agree with the report that this is a worthwhile trade and we should help them develop even though it will be bad for the climate.
There is really no evidence that absolute decoupling has happened in any country, developed or underdeveloped:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117303404
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33637268/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220306503
As Vaden et al. (2020) conclude, after reviewing 179 articles, "in the absence of robust evidence, the goal of decoupling rests partly on faith.”
It seems most of the evidence for absolute decoupling comes from Our World in Data charts.
In any event, decoupling is not ony about emissions, its about all environmental pressures, including material footprint. In regards to the latter, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that developed countries have decoupled their material footprint, quite the opposite.
Haberl et al, the paper you cited, acknowledges it is happening in some countries. In the paper's abstract they say: "Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP from both production- and, weaklier, consumption-based CO2 emissions." The leading degrowth researcher, Jason Hinkel's paper on absolute decoupling acknowledges this as well. They think it is happening too slowly, which I state as a reasonable counterpoint in the article. I briefly looked through the other papers you linked and don't see any smoking guns in those. If you're not going to trust the raw data I presented here OR the papers that you linked, I don't know what to tell you.
First of all, its great that this debate is happening
The conclusions from the Haberl et al. study are clear:
"So far, environment and climate policies have at best achieved relative decoupling between GDP and resource use respectively GHG emissions (Kemp-Benedict 2018, Haberl et al 2019). Exceptions include a group of 18 countries that have reduced CO2 emissions in the last decade(LeQu´ er´ eetal 2019),and a few national cases, most of which are due to specific circumstances that probably should not be generalized (e.g. when falling resource use stems from economic crises; Shao et al 2017)."
Those who promote absolute decoupling as possible, focus only on emissions but this is only a partial analysis and really empties the term of any meaning.
Eschewing material footprint is not decoupling in any true meaning of the term.
Even at its height, the literature shows that examples of absolute decoupling of emissions are very rare, mostly temporary and the result of specific circumstances (deindustrialisation, low economic growth, recession etc) and not specific policy choices. This is not decoupling.
My reading of the literature is that faith in decoupling is more a case of wishful thinking rather than any empirical reality.