Search

The ecological price of economic growth is a heavily debated issue, where ideologies often neglect factual information. In this paper, through the relationship of the ecological footprint and GDP, we examine the tendencies of eco-efficiency in the first decade of the 21st century. We conclude that the average ecological footprint intensity of countries have improved significantly in the given period. In 2009, 50 percent less area was needed to produce a unit of GDP. Many countries could reach the so-called strong decoupling − these countries could increase GDP while decreasing the ecological footprint in absolute terms. We also repeated the analysis of a scientific article published in 2004. We managed to update data and identify ecologically positive tendencies. In ten years, the average of the world’s ecological footprint intensity has significantly improved, it halved all in all. We found that 90 percent of the countries started to move to the direction of sustainable development. Among the studied 131 countries, 40 experienced strong decoupling (absolute decrease of resource use), in 77 countries weak decoupling occurred (relative decrease of resource use), and there were only 14 countries, where no decoupling could be observed (relative increase of resource use). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authors have developed a GDP/EF correlation function and calculated the ecological footprint (EF) from 10.000 B.C. till 1960, using historical statistics, with the method of backcasting¹. In all major indicators growth patterns have been dominating, not only since the industrial revolution, but in the known history of mankind. From data since 1961, we calculate the correlation between GDP and the ecological footprint. Using existing historical statistics and these calculations, we are able to determine long time data series of population, GDP, biocapacity and EF. Examining these numbers in specific periods (transition points or jumps) give three interesting results. First: the main drive of growth is not population anymore, but consumption of the developed economies. Second: we are probably turning to an era of balance: we identified a seventh jump between the 1930s and 1970s. Third and most of all: our guiding paradigm legitimizing growth (from the late 18th century) should be revisited, to enable a calm transition to the post-capitalist age. Because in the time of establishing our mainstream paradigm, Earth was roughly 10 per cent full,² in 2008 this figure is over 150 per cent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]