| Literature DB >> 23565033 |
Simron Jit Singh1, Fridolin Krausmann, Simone Gingrich, Helmut Haberl, Karl-Heinz Erb, Peter Lanz, Joan Martinez-Alier, Leah Temper.
Abstract
India's economic growth in the last decade has raised several concerns in terms of its present and future resource demands for materials and energy. While per capita resource consumption is still extremely modest but on the rise, its sheer population qualifies India as a fast growing giant with material and energy throughput that is growing rapidly . If such national and local trends continue, the challenges for regional, national as well as global sustainability are immense in terms of future resource availability, social conflicts, pressure on land and ecosystems and atmospheric emissions. Using the concepts of social metabolism and material flow analysis, this paper presents an original study quantifying resource use trajectories for India from 1961 up to 2008. We argue for India's need to grow in order to be able to provide a reasonable material standard of living for its vast population. To this end, the challenge is in avoiding the precarious path so far followed by industrialised countries in Europe and Asia, but to opt for a regime shift towards sustainability in terms of resource use by building on a host of promising examples and taking opportunities of existing niches to make India a trendsetter.Entities:
Keywords: Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP); India; Material flow accounting; Social metabolism; Socio-metabolic transitions
Year: 2012 PMID: 23565033 PMCID: PMC3617596 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Econ ISSN: 0921-8009 Impact factor: 5.389
Fig. 1Trends in material use and material intensity: a) domestic material consumption (DMC) by main material groups; b) domestic material consumption per capita; c) imports and exports as share of domestic extraction (DE); d) material intensity (DMC per unit of GDP in intl. 1990 $) of the Indian economy. Sources: own calculations, see text.
Fig. 2Development of biomass flows and livestock: a) domestic material consumption (DMC) of biomass by main material groups; please note that the material group fish is very small (between 0.1 and 0.3% of DE and DMC) and therefore not visible in the graph. As net trade with biomass is very small compared to DE, the values for DE and DMC of biomass are very similar. b) physical net trade (imports minus exports) with biomass; c) domestic consumption (DMC) of biomass; d) change in livestock by major livestock species. Sources: own calculations, see text.
Fig. 3Development of flows of fossil and mineral materials: a) per capita domestic consumption (DMC) of ores and non-metallic minerals by main material types; b) physical net trade (imports minus exports) with fossil and mineral materials; c) DMC of fossil energy carriers, d) per capita DMC and import dependency (net imports as share of DE) of fossil energy carriers.
DMC [t/cap/year] of the three main groups of mineral and fossil materials and their average annual growth rates (%) in comparison to population and GDP.
| 1961 | 1980 | 2008 | 1961-1980 | 1980-2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDP [bio USD at const. 2000] | 66 | 156 | 812 | 3.5% | 6.0% |
| Population [mio] | 444 | 687 | 1140 | 2.3% | 1.8% |
| Fossil energy carriers [DMC t/cap/yr] | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 4.7% | 6.0% |
| Ores and industrial minerals [DMC t/cap/yr] | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 3.4% | 5.6% |
| Construction minerals [DMC t/cap/yr] | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 2.0% | 6.2% |
Sources: Material and energy flows: own calculations; GDP and Population: The World Bank Group, 2010.
Comparing metabolic profiles and sustainability indicators, 2000.
| Unit | India | China | Korea | Japan | EU-15 | World | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population density | cap/km² | 307 | 134 | 471 | 336 | 116 | 45 |
| DMC | t/cap/yr | 3.6 | 7.5 | 15.2 | 11.9 | 14.1 | 8.0 |
| DMC biomass | t/cap/yr | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 2.9 |
| DMC mineral and fossil fuels | t/cap/yr | 1.8 | 5.7 | 13.4 | 11.5 | 9.4 | 5.1 |
| Electricity use | GJ/cap/yr | 2.0 | 3.8 | 20.4 | 30.9 | 25.2 | 9.0 |
| Carbon emissions | tC/cap/yr | 0.31 | 0.59 | 2.5 | 2.54 | 2.23 | 1.03 |
| Ecological footprint | ha/cap/yr | 0.8 | 1.6 | 4.05 | 4.35 | 5.0 | 2.2 |
| DMC per area | t/ha/yr | 17 | 10 | 71 | 40 | 16 | 3.6 |
| Biomass extraction per area | t/ha/yr | 6.8 | 2.6 | 7.7 | 5.0 | 5.7 | 1.4 |
| Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) | % | 73% | 38% | 26% | 24% | 43% | 22% |
Sources: Krausmann et al., 2008b, online dataset version 1.1 (DMC); Marland et al., 2007 (Carbon emissions); Loh and Wackernagel (eds.), 2004 (Ecological footprint); Haberl et al., 2007a (HANPP).
A projection of India's DMC in 2050 under the assumption of the current Japanese metabolic profile.
| India 2000 | India 2050 | Increase in global DE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | [billion] | 1.01 | 1.69 | |
| Biomass | [Gt/year] | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3% |
| Fossil fuels | [Gt/year] | 0.5 | 6.2 | 58% |
| Industrial minerals and ores | [Gt/year] | 0.1 | 1.9 | 35% |
| Construction minerals | [Gt/year] | 1.4 | 11.4 | 50% |
| Total DMC | [Gt/year] | 4.0 | 22.0 | 34% |
Source: Using population projections of the UN and per capita DMC of Japan from Krausmann et al. 2008b.