Resources, economy and society
In Depth
Can we keep consuming more and more?
Well-being and resource consumption are not the same thing.
- Last updated:
- Reading time:
- 7 min
In Brief
- According to UNEP's International Resource Panel, global extraction of natural resources has tripled over the last five decades.
- Without a change of course, extraction could grow by about 60% by 2060 compared with 2020 levels.
- Resource use is distributed very unevenly: high-income countries consume much more and generate far greater climate impacts than low-income countries.
- Reducing pressure on resources does not mean becoming poorer: efficiency, durability, repair, reuse and better services can maintain or improve quality of life.
What we know
Documented facts
- The Global Resources Outlook 2024 documents that global material extraction has tripled over the last fifty years and continues to grow.
- In the no-intervention scenario, resource extraction would increase by about 60% by 2060 compared with 2020.
- Resource use and the associated climate and environmental impacts are much higher in high-income countries than in low-income ones.
- The extraction and processing of materials are responsible for a significant share of global environmental impacts, from climate to biodiversity loss.
How sure are we?
Solid evidence
Numerous studies and authoritative sources converge.
Historical trends in resource use and their unequal distribution are documented by international sources. The projections to 2060 are scenarios, not predictions. Choices about economic models and policies are proposals and should be discussed as such.
How it can be read
Interpretations
- The quantity of materials consumed and people's well-being are related but not identical quantities: beyond a certain threshold, consuming more does not automatically improve life.
- Because impacts are concentrated where consumption is highest, reducing pressure on resources affects different countries differently.
What we don't know
- We do not know with certainty how much technological innovation can reduce the material intensity of the economy without the savings being absorbed by higher consumption.
- There is no consensus on which indicators best describe well-being beyond growth in gross domestic product.
- The social effects of policies reducing high-impact consumption depend heavily on national and local context.
Why it matters
- The availability of materials, water, land and energy determines how long an economic model can keep functioning.
- Part of the world's population consumes too little: it needs more access to energy, infrastructure and essential goods, not less.
- If the costs of the transition fall on people with fewer resources, the consensus needed to carry it out is lost.
What we can do
- Favor durability, repairability and reuse over rapid product replacement.
- Reduce waste, starting with food and energy waste.
- Ask that public policies measure material impacts, not only economic ones.
The No-Extinction proposal
Proposals
- No-Extinction proposes explicitly distinguishing, in sustainability policies, between those who must reduce very high-impact consumption and those who instead need greater access to essential goods. We do not propose voluntary poverty, but efficiency, circular economy and better services.
Sources and data
The links lead to the original documents and open in a new tab. Every figure cited in this article comes from these sources.
UNEP / International Resource Panel
Global Resources Outlook 2024
report · 2024
www.unep.org/resources/Global-Resource-Outlook-2024(opens in a new tab)