Decoupling is a myth and dematerialization backfires.

The sustainability literature usually considers economic growth, measured through gross domestic product (GDP), essential to moving toward a healthier planet and protection of biodiversity (WCED, 1987). Growth in GDP is said to promote technological efficiency while reducing the use of materials and energy and GHG emissions (Victor, 2010). Accordingly, decoupling of GDP from environmental and biodiversity impacts (Haberl et al., 2020; Wiedenhofer et al., 2020), or reducing such impacts while the economy is growing, is viewed as possible (Ward et al., 2016). However, so far dematerialization has been achieved almost exclusively through extraction of materials offshore and by only a few developed countries (Wiedmann et al., 2015). Additionally, any environmental and biodiversity improvements derived from efficiency gains have been generally cancelled by the “rebound effect” because such gains have further stimulated growth and hence materials and energy use (Schandl et al., 2018).

Recent publications show impacts on biodiversity from an ever-expanding growth fueled by continuous and intensive resource extraction. Encroachment and fragmentation of habitats; biotic homogenization; alteration of trophic structures; changes in species’ ranges and population sizes; and increases in invasive non-native species and local extinctions are examples of such impacts (Czech, 2000, 2008; Czech et al., 2012; Limburg et al., 2011; Otero et al., 2020). Expansion of intensive agriculture, forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, industry, urbanization, and transport also affect biodiversity by altering terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems (Albert et al., 2021; Czech et al., 2004; Froehlich et al, 2018; Newbold et al., 2015; Powers & Jetz, 2019; Sala & Knowlton, 2006; Weinzettel et al, 2013). Some authors have theoretically analyzed the relationship between growth and biodiversity loss (e.g., Czech, 2000; Czech et al., 2004), whereas others provide empirical evidence of it (e.g., Czech et al., 2012; Limburg et al., 2011; Weinzettel et al, 2013). For instance, Clausen and York (2008a) show how mean trophic level of marine catch decreases in nations with continuous economic expansion, urbanization, and population growth. Although in the earliest stages of economic development the mean trophic level of marine catches increases, further growth leads to a decline of species at high trophic levels and an overall ecosystem decline once GDP per capita and urbanization reach US$700 and 23%, respectively. DeFries et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between forest loss and urban growth and agricultural exports that continuously exacerbated forest clearance, particularly in the tropics. Estrada et al. (2017) found that 60% of primate species are threatened by extinction and 75% are in decline as a result of habitat loss through the expansion of industrial agriculture, large-scale cattle ranching, logging, oil and gas drilling, mining, dam building, and road construction. Marques et al. (2019) report industrial agriculture and forestry are major drivers of bird species loss; anthropogenic land use is responsible for up to 7% of this loss and a rise in the international goods trade is responsible for an additional 25% of bird biodiversity impacts. Results of several other studies also demonstrate that numbers of threatened plant, amphibian, invertebrate, fish, and reptile species increase with economic growth (Clausen & York, 2008b; Czech & Krausman, 1997; Naidoo & Adamowicz, 2001).