Thanks for the comment! Yes, there are many different ideas of decoupling. In general it is not so much the material production as the environmental impact. Like you said, we could transition to more service-based, experiential products (e.g. your online video game). However, these services will still make an impact, albeit a less obvious one to the consumer (that video game took many people and resources to develop, store on servers, and run on your computer). I don’t think anyone would argue with the logic that everything we do has an impact on the environment weather we notice it or not.

The services and experiental products you mentioned might very well provide less of an impact on the environment, per unit (relative decoupling) but the overall tread would still be increasing those impacts as a whole if it is tied to expanding the economy – that is, if we intend on growing those services and therefore physical size of the economy (more programmers, more servers, more development of video games). So you see, while you might think of them as fixed costs, if we want more video games (or other experiential products) we will need more resources to create them. The end user might use less resources (like you said, you’re not buying any physical piece, just information), but the process as a whole uses resources and will use more if that industry grows.

The argument you touch on is not a new one for neoclassical economists, that we can create an impact-free economy (absolute decoupling), but it does get at a very basic flaw in neoclassical economics: the thought that the economy is separate from the Earth. In fact, the economy rests very firmly on the Earth and will always create an impact – the larger the economy gets, the great the impact – regardless of relative decoupling.

Tim Jackson’s work on this topic is pretty convincing. He shows that history does not even come close to supporting relative decoupling, especially when a greater world view is taken and all the impacts identified.

Thanks again for reading and commenting! I hope that makes more sense.

Cheers,
Joshua

But I think I’ve understood the idea of decoupling differently. DISCLAIMER: I am about to get an M.Sc in one of the best business schools of the nordic countries but I’m not majoring in economics. I may be naive but I’m honestly trying to understand.

You seem to be writing about growth as it pertains to material growth and that decoupling would mean improving efficiencies in material production. This isn’t the way I understand the idea of decoupling.

I understand the concept of decoupling as “decoupling economic growth from material production”, which would mean that as an economy and a people, we would strive to produce “intangible” economic growth.

What would this mean?

Instead of producing a pair of sneakers, we write books, and instead printing those books, we distribute them in digital format.

Instead of seeking economic growth from products, we can invest in developing services. Instead of more products and “things” we would strive to make life more meaningful and rewarding through a service economy based on “intangible production”.

We can even add value (=economic growth) to existing material objects through customization, recycling and – dare I say – advertising. Stories, images, fantasies, and culture – something that the advertising industry has been historically frowned upon for creating – could actually be where the future of growth lies. In the intangible cultural value decoupled from material production.

This highlights what I think is the fundamental flaw in thinking about decoupling from the perspective of (at least classical) economics: It’s based on the idea of transaction of a product for a money as the basis of an economy.

But really we don’t need the products, do we? We just need whatever they do, right? We don’t need food (products), we need to be fed (service). We don’t need make-up (product), but we want to feel beautiful (experience).

Services utilizing human interaction, cultural production of meaning and digital distribution is where the future of growth lies – and the material costs for that are not necessarily equatable to their value.

As a final example:

I just recently bought a computer game online. In practice I only paid for information as there was no material parts exchanged (not even material money), which provides me a service through which I can play and interact with other people. I’m very happy with it, and so seems to be about a million other people. The computer it takes to run it does require energy. Given, the people who made the game did require some kind of food and energy as well to develop the service, but I would argue that those are relatively fixed costs. Am I badly off?

Glad you like the post!

Cheers,
Joshua

SO glad you wrote this post. I think the above point – thermodynamics – is THE key to the steady state argument and the case against infinite economic growth. Wish there was more discussion about this because it seems so crucial. A side note: Sometimes folks get worked up about the prospect of “virtually inexhaustible” energy sources (think nuclear) – but these limits STILL apply. Right?? If energy is not the limiting factor, then it’s water, atmosphere, soil, materials, etc.

The fact is: we live on a planet. We depend on things. We can’t cut those planetary ties in the end, and most likely, we probably wouldn’t want to anyway. After all, in universe terms, things are pretty good here.

I like Tim Jackson’s phrasing: the only “credible vision for humanity” is to work within these natural limits. He’s right. Technology saving the day really doesn’t seem all that “credible”, does it?