COVID proves that only reducing consumption can reduce emissions. Try or die for degrowth.

The COVID-19 pandemic and confinement period has also been an occasion to observe decoupling and rebounds (Alcott, 2005; Polimeni, 2012) within societies adjusting to a dramatic, involuntary downscaling of socio-economic activities due to global lockdowns. In April 2020, in comparison to 2019 values, daily global CO2 emissions had decreased by around 17% (Le Quéré et al., 2020). Values exhibited in the peak low of emissions during COVID-19 were equal to those corresponding to 2006 values – 14 years ago (Canadell et al., 2020). However, several months after, studies detected a rapid rebound (Harvey, 2020), and in 2021 global energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to grow once again by 4.8% (IEA, 2021). It is often argued that decoupling is bound by temporal features such that decoupling is usually followed by periods of no decoupling or even recoupling, making it a challenge for becoming a permanent and continuous matter (Vadén et al., 2020; Williamson, 2021). The notion of rebound is also captured where in some instances, the very act of solving environmental problems in itself spends resources and may even create additional problems that were previously unthinkable (Allen et al., 2003).

15.5 Discussion and Conclusions

Most empirical literature and reviews illustrate little to no evidence of resource or impact decoupling in absolute terms that is extensive and effective enough to be accepted as given. Moreover, when externalities are to some degree accounted for, decoupling attempts are cancelled out by the impacts and consequences of trade or the exertion of built-in power asymmetries and extractive frontiers prolonging the North-South divide and socio-environmental inequalities in terms of benefts and burdens – primary research loci of the Ecological Economics and Political Ecology disciplines.

The study of decoupling needs to be scrutinised holistically, such that both demand-side and supply-side analyses go hand in hand. For embarking on a transformative path, we require a holistic vision regarding tracing the origins of resources, internalising externalities, and, better yet, downscaling dependencies. This implies moving away from “certain” narratives (Lazarevic & Valve, 2017), like decoupling or the circular economy. Instead, the intersectionality of resource use and socioecological well-being needs scrutiny for transformative policy and change. Recent directions for example taken by the European Environmental Agency (2021) evaluate alternative narratives other than growth accepting a long-lasting, absolute decoupling of economic growth and environmental pressures.

Decoupling is not only a biophysical constraint or a matter of effciency limited to the technosphere but rather is one of distribution, one where far-reaching lifestyle changes (Wiedmann et al., 2020) complement technological advancements and one which embraces principles of environmental and social justice (Parrique et al., 2019). Ivan Illich had alluded to principles of suffciency and justice in terms of putting limits to energy use back in the 1970s, where he recalled that a ceiling on energy use could indeed bring upon social relations characterised with high levels of equity (Illich, 1974). Some studies argue that a 2–6 times increase in sustainable resources at the global level would universally attain more qualitative goals (O’Neill et al., 2018); others (Millward-Hopkins et al., 2020) indicate that in the year 2050, fnal energy consumption globally could be reduced to 1960 levels, despite a tripling in the population.

Pathways that entail less dependency on resources need to be formulated based on alternative policies that comply with suffciency-oriented strategies with strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets (Haberl et al., 2020). These, as such, may promote alternative forms of existence like that of degrowth (Kallis et al., 2020) or other prosperous ways down (Odum & Odum, 2008) that link resource use and emissions to collective well-being rather than provoking ecological destruction. What is clear, however, as per COVID-19 pandemic times faced with unprecedented conditions, we are indeed able to adapt genuinely and responsively to change. Similarly, when tackling the climate crises and our dependence on resources, sufficiency for defining alternative futures is an alternative worth considering. While technological advancements proceed in all sectors, behavioural and narrative changes are crucial, if not more, in guiding this transformation.