Talk:Eco-economic decoupling

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Eco-economic decoupling (14 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,304	3,304
Definition	429	429
Terminology	19	6,228
Relative and absolute decoupling	5,562	5,562
Resource and impact decoupling	647	647
Relevance	7,711	7,711
Policies	604	604
Technologies	925	925
Documentation	1,323	1,323
Lack of evidence for decoupling	4,779	4,779
See also	281	281
References	30	336
Sources	306	306
External links	267	267
Total	26,187	26,187

Environmental pressure

Should "environmental pressure" be replaced with "environmental damage"? Bmcm (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting source

Interesting source from the European Environmental Bureau: [1] --PJ Geest (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update sources

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)[reply]

Impossibilities

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)[reply]

Max Roser figure

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)[reply]

IPAT and Jevons and Ecological Footprint

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)[reply]

+++++

I have removed this because firstly you provided no sources for these statements. They read more like an opinion piece/essay. Secondly, the lead is not the right place to add such content. If anything, it should be in the main text (with sources) and then summarised in the lead. The lead is the summary of the article, not the "introduction". EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible or Impossible?

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)[reply]

Well, I think the point is that this is under debate. Some studies say this, others say that. Can you think of ways to make this section flow better? EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, capitalism (even if Adam Smith didn't want that) has a tendency to overconsume and overproduce. We've seen this numerous times like in the Great Depression and such. Also, even if it didn't have any issues, what's to stop that? Everything.

Also, GDP and carbon are tied. You cannot grow without using resources, and Investopedia defines growth as the increase in production rates (and resource use). This isn't about this mystical variable or force, we in a deadly system tied to resource use. The only way to stop this is reorientation towards use-value and mutual aid economics.

There. We can get rid of the mumbo jumbo and say it straight: while GDP is tied to resource use alongside economic growth, there is a camp that holds green growth is an oxymoron. ManOfDirt (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need reliable sources for whatever new content you'd like to add. Do you have some at your fingertips? EMsmile (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]