NEW TERMS AND APPROACHES IN ECONOMY IN THE PROCESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Öz

Climate change is a currently global issue having more significant impacts on a regional basis particularly in developing countries, with serious potential threats on humankind through the ecosystem services in the future. Considering climate change is presumably caused by human activity, it is clear that the role of economic activity is undisputed. It is stated that there will be experienced an increase in the economic activities due to global population growth. In particular growth-oriented economies, atmospheric greenhouse gas level has been increased as a result of fossil fuel consumption and landuse change due to the economic activities carried out to ensure economic growth and it is expected more for several decades. Along with the continued economic growth in a stable manner, to ensure the sustainability of natural resources has the utmost importance. In other words, assuming that economic growth will continue unabated, we need to consider the environmental constraints and we need to make the resources sustainable.

Sustainable resource use can also be possible through the decoupling of resource use from economic growth and this concept has been emerging as a concept that should be considered in the line of global resource flow.  . This study is established on this basis. The article highlights the importance of decoupling and discusses in every aspect. The difference between developing and developed countries in terms of decoupling and decoupling process in the scope of climate change is evaluated by examining how to measure of decoupling and how it should be monitored. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Decoupling,Economic Growth,Climate Change

İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİ SÜRECİNDE EKONOMİDEKİ YENİ KAVRAMLAR VE YAKLAŞIMLAR

Öz

İklim değişikliği günümüzde tüm dünya üzerinde etkili olmakla birlikte özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde bölgesel bazda daha önemli etkilere sahip, gelecekte de ekosistem hizmetleri aracılığıyla insanlığı ciddi şekilde tehdit etme potansiyeli bulunan küresel bir sorundur. İklim değişikliğine büyük ölçüde insan aktivitelerinin yol açtığı düşünüldüğünde, iklim değişikliğinde ekonomik aktivitelerin rolünün tartışılmaz olduğu açıktır. Küresel nüfus artışına bağlı olarak ekonomik aktivitelerde de artış yaşanacağı ifade edilmektedir.  Özellikle büyüme odaklı ekonomilerde ekonomik büyümenin sağlanması yönünde gerçekleştirilen ve nüfus artışıyla birlikte daha da artacağı düşünülen ekonomik aktivitelere bağlı fosil yakıt tüketimi ve arazi kullanımı değişikliği sonucu atmosferdeki sera gazı konsantrasyonu artmaktadır ve gelecek birkaç on yılda çok daha artması beklenmektedir. Ekonomik büyümenin istikrarlı bir şekilde devam ettirilebilmesi paralelinde doğal kaynakların sürdürülebilirliğinin sağlanması da büyük önem taşımaktadır. Ekonomik büyümenin hız kesmeden devam edeceğini varsaydığımızda çevresel sınırlamaların varlığını da dikkate almamız ve kaynakları sürdürülebilir hale getirmemiz gerekmektedir. Sürdürülebilir bir kaynak kullanımı da ancak kaynak kullanımının ekonomik büyümeden ayrıklaştırılması yoluyla mümkün görünmektedir ve bu kavram küresel kaynak akışı paralelinde dikkat edilmesi gereken bir kavram olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.  Çalışmamız bu temel üzerine kurulmuştur. Makale, ayrıklaştırmanın önemini vurgulamakta ve ayrıklaştırmayı her yönüyle ele almaktadır. Ayrıklaştırmanın nasıl ölçüldüğü ve ayrıklaştırma sürecinin nasıl izlenmesi gerektiği incelenerek, ayrıklaştırma açısından gelişmiş ülke ve gelişmekte olan ülke farklılıkları ve iklim değişikliği kapsamında ayrıklaştırma süreci değerlendirilmiştir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ayrıklaştırma,Ekonomik Büyüme,İklim Değişikliği

Kaynakça

1. Azar, C., Holmberg, J. ve Karlsson,S. (2002). Decoupling—past trends and prospects for the future. Report of Environmental Advisory Council, Sweden.
2. Ballingall, J., Steel, D. ve Briggs, P. (2003). Decoupling economic activity and transport growth: the state of play in New Zealand. The 26th Australasian Transport Research Forum, 1-3 October, 2003, Wellington, New Zealand.
3. BIO Intelligence Service. (2012). Assessment of resource efficiency indicators and targets. Institute for Social Ecology and Sustainable Europe Research Institute Final Report Prepared for the European Commission. DG Environment.
4. Bithas, K. ve Kalimeris, P. (2013). Re-estimating the decoupling effect: is there an actual transition towards a less energy-intensive economy?. Energy. 51:78-84.
5. Channell, J., Jansen, H. R., Curmi, E., Rahbari, E., Nguyen, P., Morse, E., ... ve Kruger, T. (2015). Energy darwinism II: Why a low carbon future doesn’t have to cost the earth. New York: Citigroup.
6. Diakoulaki, D. ve Mandaraka, M. (2007). Decomposition analysis for assessing the progress in decoupling industrial growth from CO2 emissions in the EU manufacturing sector. Energy Economics. 29(4): 636-664.
7. EC (2003). Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels.
8. EC (2011). Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Region. Brussels.

9. Edenhofer, O., ve Jakob, M. (2012). Growth, degrowth, or green growth? in search of a better paradigm. https://www.pressestelle.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a70100710/Protokoll/Climate_Lecture/Edenhofer_Climate_Lecture_2012_01.pdf, (26.09.2016).
10. Ehrlich, P. ve Holdren, J. (1972). A bulletin dialogue on the ‘closing circle’: critique: one-dimensional ecology. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 28(5): 16–27.
11. EIA (2011). “ Age of electric power generators varies widely”, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=1830#, (26.09.2016).
12. Finel, N. ve Tapio, P. (2012). Decoupling transport CO2 form GDP. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku.
13. Flavin, C., Gonzalez, M., Majano, A. M., Ochs, A., Da Rocha, M. ve Tagwerker, P. (2014). Study on the development of the renewable energy market in Latin America and the Caribbean. The IDB Working Paper.
14. Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Lieber, M., ve Lutter, S. (2014). Global patterns of material flows and their socioeconomic and environmental implications: a MFA study on all countries world-wide from 1980 to 2009. Resources, 3(1), 319-339.
15. Giorgetti, A. (2007). A discussion on decoupling economic growth from the emissions of carbon dioxide. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2007/02. Yeni Zelanda.
16. Global Footprint Network (2016). “National footprint accounts 2016 are out! carbon makes up 60% of world’s ecological footprint”, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ar/index.php/GFN/blog/national_footprint_accounts_2016_carbon_makes_ up_60_of_worlds_footprint, (26.09.2016).
17. Handrich, L., Kemfert, C., Mattes, A., Pavel, F. ve Traber, T. (2015). Turning point: decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from economic growth. E-Paper. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
18. Hatzigeorgiou, E., Polatidis, H. ve Haralambopoulos, D. (2011). CO2 emissions, GDP and energy intensity: a multivariate cointegration and causality analysis for Greece, 1977–2007. Applied Energy, 88: 1377-1385.
19. Hepburn, C. ve Bowen, A. (2012). Prosperity with growth: economic growth, climate change and environmental limits. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 93. United Kingdom.
20. Hussen, A. M. (2000). Principles of environmental economics: economics, ecology and public policy. London: Routledge.
21. IGES (2014). Reducing fertiliser use in Denmark. Reductions Fact Sheet.
22. IPCC (2013). Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.
24. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K. H., Haberl, H. ve Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 68(10): 2696-2705.
25. Li, J. (2011). Decoupling urban transport from GHG emissions in Indian cities – a critical review and perspectives. Energy Policy. 39: 3503-3514.
26. Lu, Z. (2008). Crossing “environmental mountain”—Study of industrial ecology [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: Science Press.
27. Lu, Z., Wang, H. ve Yue, Q. (2011). Decoupling indicators: quantitative relationships between resource use, waste emissions and economic growth [in Chinese]. Resource Science. 33(1): 2–9.
28. Lu, Z. ve Mao, J. (2003). Crossing “environmental mountain”— on the increase and decrease of environment load in the process of economic growth [in Chinese]. Engineering Sciences. 5(12): 36–42.
29. McKinnon, A. (2007). Decoupling of road freight transport and economic growth trends in the UK: an exploratory analysis. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal. 27(1): 37-64.
30. Mudgal, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Chenot, B., Lockwood, S., Mitsios, A., Schaffartzik, A., Eisenmenger, N., Cachia, F., Steinberger, J., Weisz, U., Kotsalainen, K., Reisinger, H. ve Labouze, E. (2010). Preparatory study for the review of the thematicstrategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. Final Report for the European Commission (DG Environment). Paris.
31. OECD (2002). Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. OECD Report. Paris.
32. Parkinson, G. (2016). Tesla & Rivals May Kill The Petrol Car As Early As 2025. https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/06/tesla-rivals-may-kill-the-petrol-car-as-early-as-2025/, (26.09.2016).
33. Schneider, F., Kallis,G. ve Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis opportunity? economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 18 (6): 511– 518.
34. Simmons, S. (2004). The case for immaterialisation. The ASSIST Working Paper.
35. Sjöström, M. ve Östblom, G. (2010). Decoupling waste generation from economic growth – a CGE analysis of the Swedish case. Ecological Economics. 69: 1545-1552.
36. Sorrell, S. Lehtonena, M. Stapletona, L. Pujol, J. ve Champion, T. (2012). Decoupling of road freight energy use from economic growth in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy. 41: 84-97.
37. Spaargaren, G. ve Mol, A. P. J. (1992). Sociology, environment, and modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Society and Natural Resources. 5(4): 323–344.
38. Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernization theory and the changing discourse on environment and modernity. Spaargaren, G., Mol, A. P. J., Buttel, F. H.(Der.) Environment and global modernity: İçinde 41-73. London: Sage.
39. Tapio, P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy. 12(2): 137-151.
40. UN (2007). World population prospects: the 2006 revision, highlights. Working Paper. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
41. UN (2015a). “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20 Development%20web.pdf , (26.09.2016).
42. UN (2015b). “Millennium development goals and Beyond 2015”, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml, (26.09.2016).
43. UNEP (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. France.
44. Van Caneghem, J., Block, C., van Hooste, H. ve Vandecasteele, C. (2010). Eco-efficiency trends of the flemish industry: decoupling of environmental impact from economic growth. J. Clean. Prod. 18: 1349– 1357.
45. Van der Voet, E., Van Oers, L. ve Nikolic, I. (2004). Dematerialization: not just a matter of weight. J. Ind. Ecol. 8: 121–137.
46. Van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Moll, S., Schutz, H., Bringezu, S., de Bruyn, S., Sevenster, M. ve Warringa, G. (2005). Development of indicators to assess decoupling of economic development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries. Policy Review on Decoupling. RA Leiden, the Netherlends.
47. Vehmas, J., Malaska, P., Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Hietanen, O., Vinnari, M. ve Ilvonen, J. (2003). Europe in the global battle of sustainability: rebound strikes back? – advanced sustainability analysis. Working Paper. Turku: Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration Series Discussion and Working Papers 7 .
48. Venkatachalam, L. (2007). Environmental economics and ecological economics: where they can converge?. Ecological Economics. 61(2-3): 550–558.
49. Wang, H., Hashimoto, S., Yue, Q., Moriguchi, Y. Ve Lu, Z. (2013). Decoupling analysis of four selected countries. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 17(4): 618-629.
50. Weinberg, M. (1994). Technology and the rnvironment: the search for balance. Technological Choice, Clean, Green Technology. http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/technology/clean/artgreen.html, (26.09.2016).
51. WCED (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. World Bank (2016). “Poverty: overview”, http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview, (26.09.2016).
53. Zhang, Z. (2000). Decoupling China's carbon emissions increase from economic growth: an economic analysis and policy implications. World Development. 28 (4): 739–7.