One way to visualise the relationship between the factors affecting environmental impacts is the following equation:

I = P x A x T:

The "I" ("Impact") in the equation represents the pressure on the environment, such as pollution levels, increases in endangered species, or greenhouse gas emissions. "P" ("Population") represents the number of people. "A" ("Affluence") represents wealth, usually measured by gross domestic product per capita. There is a strong link between wealth and consumption. "T" ("Technology") represents the environmental impact of consumption per unit of money, which is influenced by the environmental friendliness of the available technology, among other factors.

The equation therefore shows that as people become more numerous and affluent, the pressure on the environment increases, but the pressure also depends on the environmental friendliness of the goods and services consumed: what is consumed and how the consumed products are produced. 

At present, the pressures on the environment drastically exceed the capacity of the Earth's ecosystems to regenerate and to process man-made wastes, resulting in intensifying climate change, accelerating extinctions of species and a general deterioration of the environment. The upward trend in environmental pressures must therefore be contained and reversed if the conditions for life on Earth are to remain such that humans and other organisms have the opportunity to thrive.

However, given the vast differences in population growth, wealth and technological capacities in different regions of the world, it is appropriate to look at ways of reducing environmental impacts on a region-by-region basis.

The UN's International Resource Panel (IRP) published its 2024 report on the trends in economic activity and environmental impacts in the 21st century. All the indicators of environmental pressures considered - greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss caused by land use and eutrophication, impacts of water consumption, and harmful air pollution - have worsened globally over the past 20 years or more. For a more detailed analysis, the world was divided into seven different regions

Figure. The grouping of countries to regions by by the UN Resource Panel. EECCA refers to Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. 

The following figure shows the material footprint of different regions of the world in 2000 and 2020.

Figure. Material footprint in different regions in 2000 and 2020. The bars represent the material footprint of the whole region (million tonnes per year), the circles represent the per capita footprint (tonnes per year per capita). Source: UNEP (2024).

The material footprints of Europe and North America have remained almost unchanged in the 2000s, and the per capita material footprints have actually decreased slightly (but are still high compared to the global average). The Asia+Pacific region, home to around 60% of the world's population, has seen its material consumption almost double in the 2000s to just over half of current global consumption. In other regions, consumption has also increased, both in absolute terms and per capita. In Africa, the per capita material footprint is still very low, at less than a third of the average European footprint (and less than an eighth of the average Finnish footprint). 

The following figure shows how changes in population size, affluence and technology affected the material footprint of different regions between 2000 and 2022.

Image. Drivers of change in the material footprint 2000-2022. Source: UNEP (2024).

Globally, the material footprint was inflated by increases in affluence (40%) and population (27%); technology had a negative impact of - 5%. Wealth increase was a key driver of the footprint, especially in the Asia-Pacific and EECCA regions. Population growth was the main contributor to the growth of the footprint in Africa and West Asia. In Europe and North America, technology more or less offset the footprint-enhancing effect of increased wealth and population growth.

In West Asia and the EECCA region, technology increased the material footprint, but it is difficult to decipher from the data exactly why this is the case. 'Technology' in the analysis is simply the amount of material consumed divided by GDP, so there are a number of factors that can affect it in addition to the "greenness" of the technology.

The International Resource Panel also analysed the regional footprints of climate impacts, biodiversity loss and freshwater overuse, and these were broadly in line with the results for the material footprint. However, the footprint of freshwater consumption increased in all country groups, including Europe and North America.

Changes in demographic trends

The per capita environmental impact in the poorest countries is relatively low, due to poverty. Naturally, efforts are being made to reduce poverty, which means more consumption and therefore higher environmental impacts. In some of the poorest countries birth rates are also still relatively high and the population is projected to increase. It therefore seems inevitable that the environmental impacts of the poorest countries will increase, at least to some extent, as their populations grow and become more prosperous. (According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), eradicating extreme poverty and energy poverty, and providing a decent standard of living for all, is however achievable without a significant increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The leap to low-carbon systems can be accomplished with adequate investments into technology development and transfer, financing and capacity building.)

Birth rates have traditionally been high in poor, predominantly agricultural communities, where children have been an economic security because of their participation in agricultural work. As used to be said in Finland, "a child brings bread with it". But the number of children falls sharply as the economy shifts to industry and services, and people move to live in cities.

One way of limiting population growth is to increase knowledge of reproductive health and make contraception available. Increasing the education of women can also help to curb population growth, as women with higher education tend to have fewer children. Better female education also reduces gender inequalities, as it opens up opportunities for women in the labour market, which in turn creates economic stability and independence.

Urbanisation and improved health care will also reduce infant mortality, leading to lower fertility rates. In urbanised societies, raising children is also expensive. In countries where there is no tax-funded day care, either the parent (usually the mother) has to be off work to care for the children, or the care has to be organised in some other way. Also education can be a big expense. Also the high cost of housing in urban areas limits family sizes.

The graph below illustrates fertility rates by country. The number of children born per woman is less than two in Europe and in most affluent countries, which means that without immigration their populations will be declining in the future. Population growth is highest in countries with the highest number of children born per woman, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure. Fertility rates in the world. You can examine changes in the birth rates by moving the cursor over the country of your choice.

The figure below shows the UN's projection of world population up to 2100. According to the projection, population growth in Asia will stop in the middle of this century, but will continue in Africa until the end of the century. The global population will peak ( at about 10.3 billion) in the 2080s and then start to decline. However, these are just projections: changes in projected fertility rates could lead to significantly lower or higher population numbers at the end of the century.

Figure. UN prediction for world population up to 2100.

We need change, but just what kind of change?

If the world continues on its current trajectory, material consumption will increase by 60% by 2060. Under current policies, greenhouse gas emissions will also increase by 23%, and the loss of biodiversity will not be halted.

The UN's International Resource Panel has developed a scenario calculation for the sustainability transition, which reconciles a range of regulatory, financial, trade, consumption and resource efficiency measures. The scenario is built to further boost economic growth in all regions, while simultaneously constraining environmental pressures relative to historical trajectories. In the sustainability transition scenario, greenhouse gas emissions in 2060 are 83% lower than today, but material consumption increases by 23%, and the loss of biodiversity is not slowed down. The report also mentions that "It is important to note that the modelling does not account for likely negative feedback effects from environmental impacts to economic activity and well-being, such as climate impacts, air and water pollution or the risk of ecosystem collapse." Yet, the report also states:

"Without any change, our current deeply unsustainable systems of consumption and production will gradually grow and culminate in catastrophic impacts on the Earth systems and ecological processes that underpin human well-being and the diversity of life on our planet."

This raises the question as to whether it is rational to begin scenario-building with an aim to further accelerate global economic growth (and hence increase environmental pressures). Or would it be better to start from the preservation of the Earth systems and ecological processes?

Since increased material consumption in wealthy countries does little to improve the well-being of citizens, one might think that reducing consumption in these countries would be the fairest and most effective way to reduce global environmental pressures. However, reducing consumption and abandoning the pursuit of economic growth would require radical changes in the political atmosphere and economic structures. So far, this idea is far from the political mainstream.

More material online (in Finnish)

Aalto University Professor Minna Halme presents alternatives to the goals of economic growth, profit maximisation and efficiency in a Sustainability Panel blog https://www.kestavyyspaneeli.fi/blog_post/kestavyysmurroksen-pyha-kolminaisuus/

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.