Highlights
- Reductions in energy intensity is arguably our most important tool to achieve a sustainable energy future
- Developed nations have reduced energy consumption since the financial crisis and the US has seen continued GDP growth
- However, household income (proxy for living standard) has declined with energy consumption in the US
- This trend poses serious questions about the feasibility of continued increases in living standards despite reductions in energy consumption
Introduction
A lot has been written recently about the decoupling between GDP and energy. This decoupling (shown for the IEA New Policies scenario below) is generally viewed as a central part of the solution to the the sustainability problems we face in the 21st century.

Decoupling between economic growth and energy consumption is often attributed to energy efficiency, but in actual fact stems primarily from the general transition to more service-based value creation as economies mature. As an example, the graph below plots energy intensity in the US against the fraction of the economy dedicated to manufacturing (the balance being services), revealing a almost perfect correlation.

Developing nations can therefore be expected to achieve substantial reductions in energy intensity over the coming decades as value creation is shifted more towards services. Developed nations, however, may be at the point where the economy is saturated with services, thus posing questions about whether these nations can further reduce energy intensity at meaningful rates.
Trends in developed economies
The ideal scenario in terms of decoupling is the achievement of a growing economy despite declining levels of energy consumption. Several developed economies have recently managed to achieve this goal for the first time in recent history following a seemingly structural change in energy consumption patterns after the great financial crisis and the spike in oil prices.
Between 2007 and 2013, primary energy consumption declined by 4.5%, 6.6% and 10% in the US, Euro Area and Japan respectively. However, as shown below, the US economy is the only one which managed to achieve any meaningful improvement in terms of per capita rate of production during this period. Note that the graph below uses NDP (Net Domestic Product) rather than GDP to better reflect actual production of useful goods and services (the primary difference between GDP and NDP is that NDP subtracts capital writedowns). Numbers are adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflation and were extracted from the OECD website.

The use of NDP instead of GDP makes the US look better since capital writedowns are smaller relative to Europe and Japan, but I think this is a more representative measure than GDP. Overall though, the above graph suggests that US citizens are rapidly expanding the already large gap in living standards relative to their European and Japanese counterparts. As shown below (energy numbers from the BP Statistical Review), the US is also achieving rapid reductions in energy intensity and, although it still has some catching up to do, progress is better than in Europe and Japan.

Overall then, the US appears to be the shining light in the story of continued economic expansion despite declining energy consumption. But is this really the case?
Energy and living standards in the US
In fact, an important worrying trend in the US has now gone on for so long that it is actually becoming a mainstream issue: stagnant wages. To summarize, when adjusted for inflation, current median household income in the US is at the same level as it was in 1995 – two decades ago! This is quite surprising given that NDP/capita has increased from $30000 to almost $40000 between 1995 and 2013 in the above graph.
There are three main reasons for this decoupling of per capita production and median wages:
1. Increasing profits. Businesses have been paying their workers a progressively smaller share of total revenue over the past three decades and using the resulting increasing profits to expand, pay more dividends and stockpile cash. In general, this trend implies that investment is increasing relative to consumption.
2. GDP deflator vs. CPI. GDP (and NDP) are adjusted with time via the GDP deflator which standardizes the value of domestic production, while wages are adjusted using the core inflation which tracks prices of a representative basket of goods and services (local or imported). This trend implies that the cost of living has been increasing faster than the cost of domestic production.
3. Increasing inequality. Income inequality in the US is rising sharply once more, thus reducing median wages relative to mean wages.
As a result, there appears to be very little decoupling between real household income (here seen as a proxy for living standards) and energy consumption. Income data in the graph below is from the US Census Bureau.

It is clear that, from the time that household energy consumption actually started a structural decline (around 2000), the general standard of living in the US has declined in tandem. When looking at electricity consumption in the graph below, the trend becomes even stronger right across the 30 year sample period.

Questions…
These trends pose some serious questions regarding the notion that rich nations can continue to increase living standards without increasing energy consumption (and the associated environmental impact). If it is really this difficult to achieve decoupling in nations enjoying decent standards of living, the world will need to quadruple energy consumption in order to bring the global population to current developed world standards. This will not be possible without some real technological miracles.
One would therefore very much like to believe that Europe and Japan will one day manage to achieve a meaningful economic recovery and that the recent divergence between household income and domestic production in the US will reverse. However, Japan has recently completed its second “lost decade” while Europe followed suit with its first. In addition, one can argue that persistently low wages coupled with increasing inequality is an important part of the reason why US GDP could continue expanding while Europe and Japan stagnated.
What do you think? Will the developed world be able to successfully decouple living standards from energy consumption? What needs to be done to break the worrying trends discussed in this article?


Perk Earl on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 10:01 am
“Can We Decouple Living Standards from Energy Consumption?”
No.
joe on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 10:21 am
Was reading about the ancient roman monetary system, and while being vastly different systems it seems that some things are similar. The Romans used banks and courts to impoverish then control people, for example ceaser owed so much money that he invaded Rome to avoid paying. Modern republics don’t allow private armies (that was until iraq 2003), but they do use banking to enforce and control policy decisions, the problem is the creation of rival systems. Right now the ‘west’ dominates using a usury system of fiat money which cannot be debased as it’s already a debasing system where money is always subdivided into loans, and deposits are the basis of new money creation. Therefore interest on loans and bonds are the key to its success. Most Americans also miss the fact that it’s biggest companies hide profits in economies outside the US. Many US firms operate in Europe and Asia but the profits of US firms created in these regions is exported. So what? Well it should be clear that money is only a human projection of a media of exchange, and that all we really do is exchange energy. So lower energy use should cause lower living standards if all things are equal. Things are not equal though. Efficency in the economy has another name, productivity, it is called that because it translates into profit directly. But. Productivity is subject to the law of diminishing returns, as with all things the US led the way with exporting jobs to lower cost zones during the down turn reducing cost but getting more back due to productivity gains. Lower marginal returns is being shown as low gdp growth but more profit being extracted. These profits are now being used on paying debt and taking low risk low return investments, that’s going to be trouble ahead as well as the profits in these dry up you face 2 choices, go riskier or deflate the economy by temporarily hiking interest rates and causing misery again. Deflation in this scenario is the central banks enemy because the system needs believers and risk takers so they will encourage risk, and that’s why the markets keep rising.
penury on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 11:48 am
Has any society ever increased or even maintained a living standard while reducing energy consumption? The proposition is asinine, there has never been a recorded reduction in energy use in any surviving society. We can switch energy sources but so far it has always been to higher energy at lower input costs, We now face the event of lower energy produced, higher input costs. SUPRISE/
ulenspiegel on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 2:02 pm
By using EU instead of individual countries the author produces more fog than clarity.
Use individual countries and add meaningful numbers for kwh per 1000USD GDP, give GDP share of industry – one could learn a lot.
BTW: These numbers are nicely compiled by Bernard Charbot on “Renewables International”.
But my feeling is that this was not the goal of the author, feeling good was more important.
BobInget on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 5:07 pm
Reducing energy consumption while growing.
Okay, here’s how we did it.
WE simply put most shipped goods, into uniform
boxes. (40 ft containers)
Before 1958 manufactured goods were loaded onto ships in (cargo) nets. Stevedores handled each piece individually. Of course, each shipment arrived at the dock in a truck which needed unloading by hand or forklift.
At the destination it took almost as much time
unloading each crate then manhandling it into
another truck or rail car.
Needless to say there was shrinkage, breakage, spoilage.
After 1959 containerization shipping costs (energy) went down as much as 500%.
Massive factories needn’t make every part in house. Now., its possible to have parts, even assembly wherever there was a hi-way, rail line or port.
Tens of hundreds of thousands of workers were displaced.
There is no such thing as a pure American car for-instance.
Your car or truck has components from a dozen different makers in hundreds of different locations. All made possible by containers.
Of course, traffic is just as bad now as in 1958.
There are more of us.Twice as many.
When interstate hi-ways came in, truckers no longer needed to travel on crowded two lanes.
More powerful diesel trucks able to manage those forty foot containers. Today, fright costs
are far lower then 60 years ago. Choo Choo trains burn far less diesel far and away.
In another post, let’s talk hard wired telephones, cell phones, the net, 3/D printing, drones,
bio and genetically engineering medicine, GMO seeds, herbicides, nano technology, keyhole surgery, organ transplants, not just solar and wind power generation.
One hundred years ago only a small fraction of us had access to electric power. Try to imagine
how much more energy a person would use without it.
I
If you are under forty (your not) expect to live well past 100.
BobInget on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 5:36 pm
The very fist thing on the agenda is breaking up unions. National and international, God forbid,
need special attention.
The next task, gerrymandering. Pols with safe seats never rock the boat.
If that isn’t as effective anymore, try…..
Voter suppression.
Today, urging the underclass to vote is called ‘cheating’ or fraud.
Nineteenth Century thinking kept enough of our population poorly educated to serve and work in factories and farms. Today, only a fraction of our population work on farms. Today, we have self driving big rigs, GPS guided tractors will soon
ditch the air conditioned cab and operator
freed up for other farm tasks.
How many milkers were put to other farm work by milking machines? Soon cows will come in for milking with no human in sight.
Today, we have robots to do boring, repetitive, dangerous lower cost labor.
Sure, there are hundreds of examples I forgot.
apneaman on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 6:03 pm
Try keeping up the living standards with a national infrastructure that is falling apart due to mostly band-aid fixes for the last 35 years and is now being increasingly hammered by climate change which most of it was not engineered for.
American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure
D+ …….$3.6 Trillion needed by 2020
Roll the printing presses
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
http://www.ibtimes.com/aging-us-power-grid-blacks-out-more-any-other-developed-nation-1631086
Energy Investor on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 6:04 pm
GDP growth is being stimulated by zero interest rates, money printing and expanded credit. This is the method by which politicians turn stagnation into growth. But their growth is just monetary easing and that bears no relationship to any other measure such as energy per person.
So while it may seem that energy growth is reducing relative to GDP growth, they have fiddled with GDP to achieve that.
BobInget on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 9:43 pm
OKAY, you would prefer to talk banking, debt and money supply. I thought the topic was transitioning out of ‘conventional’ energy resources through conservation of human as well as machine energy.
How long ago was it when traveling a person bought “Travelers Checks”?
I’m feeling, most readers here still use them.
Good luck trying to cash T. Checks anywhere but a central bank in a large, large city. Don’t forget two picture ID’s and passport.
Even stealing uses less energy.Wallets now come metal lined to prevent pick-pockets stealing your credit card data while never touching you.
People now transfer funds into a sellers cell phone. Millions of miles of copper telephone
cable never got hung. Tens of thousands miles of
roadways,never built. Millions of bus-rides never needed because of the cel phone which also
brings us to email.
AS for debt, credit and money supply, if it were not for attempting to squeeze and extra twenty years out of Iraq, we woud not have to reinvade.
“Probable Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker says he wouldn’t rule out a full-scale American re-invasion of Iraq “if the national interests of this country are at stake.”
Appearing on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, the Wisconsin governor initially demurred when interviewer Jonathan Karl asked if he’d rule out a “full-blown U.S. re-invasion of Iraq and Syria.”
“I don’t think we should ever send a message to our foes as to how far we’re willing to go,” Walker said.
Here’s where the money went.
n an interview on CNN Monday afternoon, soon-to-be presidential candidate Senator Lindsey Graham told Wolf Blitzer he believed the Iraq War was not a mistake. Graham also said President Obama is to blame for the current mess in Iraq and Syria, not former President George W. Bush.
Graham said Syria is the “mostly likely launching pad for an attack on the United States” and argued it’s going to take reengagement by the U.S. military in the region to end ISIS. Graham outlined his plan to increase troop presence in Iraq by 10,000 if he were elected president.
“I am sorry it’s going to take reengagement by the American people,” Graham said. “There no way to win the war without some of us being over there doing the fighting so they don’t hit us here at home.”
apneaman on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 10:28 pm
A Record of Unparalleled Failure
Don’t Walk Away from War
It’s Not the American Way
“So here are five straightforward lessons — none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country — that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:
1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.
2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.
3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.
4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the U.S. military is incapable of winning its wars.
5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the U.S. military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175854/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_a_record_of_unparalleled_failure/
Makati1 on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 10:37 pm
Stopped reading at this point:
“Developed nations have reduced energy consumption since the financial crisis and the US has seen continued GDP growth”
Pure unadulterated bullshit from the Ministry of Propaganda with more to follow, I am sure. Not worth my time.
Makati1 on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 10:42 pm
Apneamna, you are tramping on some ‘patriotic toes’ with your facts. I agree with all of them. America was founded on genocide of the original owners and the killing has never ended.
At least the Somalia pirates are not claiming to be ‘liberating for democracy’ those ships it boards.
apneaman on Mon, 8th Jun 2015 11:01 pm
I never wrote the article Mak. That would be American professor, journalist and author Tom Engelhardt. He has been at it – politics, foreign policy, MIC – for about as long as I have been alive.
Canada was founded on genocide too. So are all civilizations somewhere in their past. Genocide is a recurring theme in the story of the planet of the apes.
Davy on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 6:45 am
Pen said “Has any society ever increased or even maintained a living standard while reducing energy consumption?” There are no free lunches. We like to think there are and we do many clever tricks in our ape minds to believe we have created efficiency and technology to decouple from the dirty expensive fossil fuels, pollution, declining ecosystems, and resource depletion. We think we have endless substitution and technological innovation to overcome technological problems and resource depletion.
Most of the time it is just moving the numbers around and goal seeking a desired result. Fudge GDP numbers which are vague at best and ever vaguer as time goes on. We like to discount the negatives like pollution, wealth inequality, and debt. I think this comes from the recesses of our ape mind where we can convince ourselves everything is fine.
I have a whole shelf in my library on Native American Osage tribe. I have them in the highest regard but they were superstitious. They would take a sign and see good or bad from it. Not all of this was wrong because there is something call connection to life and the ecosystem but many customs, traditions, or beliefs were based on this superstition and or magic. We do the same today with the pseudo-science economics and goal seeking manipulated scientific results. We try anything to believe we are progressing into a brighter future, adapting, and transcending our environment.
We fool ourselves thinking we are not superstitious or have part of our mind that is primitive that has not evolved. Our sophistication today with the deceptive psychology of marketing, photo shopping, and idea propaganda is no different. In fact this is much more dangerous because often these modern tricks are used to control the population. These tricks are used and even fool the powers to be.
I guarantee many of the top minds in the global leadership have fooled themselves believing in technology and innovative development at least in regards to their own survival. They may believe it will get bad for others but not them. They think having an army protects them and the right tools for survival. They have the right plan for collapse where they will ride the storm out.
The powers to be believe in themselves even though they are just as much a part of the farce of a culture we are in today. We think we are exceptional and divine. Humans in general believe in the immortality of the soul and by extension our human species in progress and growth. Immortality of the soul is a whole other subject but the immortality of our species is a farce. We live only by nature’s acquiescence nothing more. Everything else is superstition.
Boat on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 3:37 pm
The US and the world has a long way to go cutting wasteful energy use. Simple upgrades to heating/cooling systems, windows, insulation etc. An infrared check shows where most of the problems with energy loss are.
The fixes are cheaper than the utility bill over time. Someday we will figure out how to finance these no brainers to scale. And yes we can cut energy use and standard of living can go up.
Housing is just one small example. Solar will bring on another paradigm shift in energy. Just a prediction.
Makati1 on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 8:10 pm
Apneamna, there are cultures that did not gain their positions from murder, but they are not in the West.
I am sure there were tribal feuds all throughout history in most places, but they didn’t claim it was to better the tribes being slaughtered. They claimed it was for plunder, land or slaves, not ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’.
The US was built on rivers of blood, most often that of someone else when possible. This is especially true since WW2 when they decided to rule the world. But, I could go on and on. one either accepts that or is blind to it. Either way, I am not going to change their perception. But, it is a shock to those who have been taught that America is the ‘exceptional/indispensable’ country of peace loving people.
Makati1 on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 8:19 pm
Boat, you are a dreamer, but I can accept that. Reality is painful if you embrace it totally. Some cannot.
Logic does not work in today’s world. Either the listener cannot understand it, or denies it. Either way, we are doomed to continue to slide down the path to extinction. That is not what I want, but what I see happening. We are in a catch 22 that will end the idea of a 1st world or even a 2nd. The 3rd world is in all of our futures, IF we are lucky.
I hope you are moving down the ladder voluntarily. Soon it will be pulled out from under you and all of us, I think.
apneaman on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 8:21 pm
The global solar boom is over
“In 2014, the world installed 40,134 MW of solar power. This brought us to a total installed capacity of 178,391 MW. How much is that? 1% of global demand. This sounds promising, until you realize that the exponential growth people talked about is over. In fact, the places that began installing solar first, have largely stopped. Exponential growth is frontpage news, collapse isn’t.”
https://thesenecaeffect.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/the-global-solar-boom-is-over/
apneaman on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 8:23 pm
Experts Say Best Option Now Is Keeping Nation As Comfortable As Possible Till End
“We need to accept the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have long—simply helping it pass that time in comfort is the humane thing to do,” said economist Danielle Martin, speaking on behalf of a large group of experts ranging from sociologists and historians to lawmakers and environmentalists, all of whom confirmed they had “done everything [they] could.” “Attempting to stabilize the country in its current enfeebled state would not only be extremely expensive, but it would also cause unnecessary agony as it enters this final stage. With how hard the nation is struggling to perform even basic functions, letting it meet its end naturally is the merciful decision here.”
http://www.theonion.com/article/experts-say-best-option-now-keeping-nation-comfort-50617
GregT on Tue, 9th Jun 2015 9:18 pm
It’s pretty sad when the Onion news becomes more realistic than the mainstream news…….