Over two centuries of economic growth have put undeniable pressure on the ecological systems that underpin human well-being. While it is agreed that these pressures are increasing, views divide on how they may be alleviated. Some suggest technological advances will automatically keep us from transgressing key environmental thresholds; others that policy reform can reconcile economic and ecological goals; while a third school argues that only a fundamental shift in societal values can keep human demands within the Earth’s ecological limits. Here we use novel integrated analysis of the energy–water–food nexus, rural land use (including biodiversity), material flows and climate change to explore whether mounting ecological pressures in Australia can be reversed, while the population grows and living standards improve. We show that, in the right circumstances, economic and environmental outcomes can be decoupled. Although economic growth is strong across all scenarios, environmental performance varies widely: pressures are projected to more than double, stabilize or fall markedly by 2050. However, we find no evidence that decoupling will occur automatically. Nor do we find that a shift in societal values is required. Rather, extensions of current policies that mobilize technology and incentivize reduced pressure account for the majority of differences in environmental performance. Our results show that Australia can make great progress towards sustainable prosperity, if it chooses to do so.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. Australian National Outlook 2015: Living standards, resource use, environmental performance and economic activity, 1970–2050. (CSIRO, Canberra, 2015)

  2. 2.

    et al. Australian National Outlook 2015 – Technical Report: Living standards, resource use, environmental performance and economic activity, 1970–2050. (CSIRO, Canberra, 2015)

  3. 3.

    et al. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347, 1–9 (2015)

  4. 4.

    et al. Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325, 1345–1346 (2009)

  5. 5.

    The structure of economic modelling of the potential impacts of climate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 838–859 (2013)

  6. 6.

    et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 346, 1–10 (2015)

  7. 7.

    World Bank. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided. (World Bank, 2012)

  8. 8.

    et al. Supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services from Australia’s agricultural land under global change. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 166–181 (2014)

  9. 9.

    UN, OECD, IMF, Eurostat World Bank (eds) System of National Accounts 1993 (United Nations, Geneva, 1993)

  10. 10.

    et al. Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. Bioscience 54, 1101–1109 (2004)

  11. 11.

    , , & Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Divers. Distrib. 13, 252–264 (2007)

  12. 12.

    & in Water: Science and Solutions for Australia (ed. ) 29–46 (CSIRO, Canberra, 2011)

  13. 13.

    et al. Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials and carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod. (2015)

  14. 14.

    & in Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modelling (eds & ) Volume 1A. (Elsevier BV, 2013)

  15. 15.

    et al. Modelling the Future Grid Forum Scenarios. (CSIRO: Newcastle, 2013)

  16. 16.

    et al. in Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation: 2014 Report. (eds , & ) (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDRRI), New York, 2014)

  17. 17.

    , & Australian retail electricity prices: can we avoid repeating the rising trend of the past? Energy Policy 86, 456–469 (2015)

  18. 18.

    UNEP. Decoupling 2: Technologies, Opportunities and Policy Options. (eds et al. ) 1–158 (United Nations Environment Program, Nariobi, 2014)

  19. 19.

    et al. The material footprint of nations. reassessing resource productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 6271–6276 (2015)

  20. 20.

    et al. Methodology and indicators of economy wide material flow accounting: state of the art and reliability across sources. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 855–876 (2011)

  21. 21.

    et al. Integrated assessment of global water scarcity over the 21st century under multiple climate change mitigation policies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2859–2883 (2014)

  22. 22.

    et al. Global nutrition: metrics for land-scarce agriculture. Science 349, 238–240 (2015)

  23. 23.

    & Environmental issues in Australia. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 1–28 (2014)

  24. 24.

    Decoupled ideals: 'Economodernist Manifesto' reframes sustainable development, but the goal remains the same. Nature 520, 407–408 (2015)

  25. 25.

    et al. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268, 520–521 (1995)

  26. 26.

    The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 32, 1419–1439 (2004)

  27. 27.

    et al. An Ecomodernist Manifesto, 1–31 (2015).

  28. 28.

    The Ultimate Resource. (Princeton University Press, 1981)

  29. 29.

    & Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 19, 41–60 (1990)

  30. 30.

    Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463, 296–297 (2010)

  31. 31.

    Understanding Institutional Diversity. (Princeton University Press, 2005)

  32. 32.

    The economics of climate change. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 1–37 (2008)

  33. 33.

    et al. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, 19 (2006)

  34. 34.

    European Environment Agency. Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation , EEA Report No 1/2013. (European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 2013)

  35. 35.

    , , & The limits to growth. (Universe Books, New York, 1972)

  36. 36.

    2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. (Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2012)

  37. 37.

    Achieving sustainability: reform or transformation? J. Plann. Lit. 9, 343–361 (1995)

  38. 38.

    Economics in a full world. Sci. Am. 293, 100–107 (2005)

  39. 39.

    et al. Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature. (UN Division for Sustainable Development, New York, 2012)

  40. 40.

    The Lowy Institute Poll 2015. (Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, 2015)

  41. 41.

    The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. (Cambridge Uni. Press, Port Melbourne, 2008)

  42. 42.

    The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change. (Cambridge Uni. Press, Port Melbourne, 2011)

  43. 43.

    Climate Change Authority. Reducing Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Targets and Progress Review: Final Report. (Climate Change Authority, Melbourne, 2014)

  44. 44.

    Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11721–11726 (2010)

  45. 45.

    , & The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003)

  46. 46.

    et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013)

  47. 47.

    et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 374, 2104–2114 (2009)

  48. 48.

    et al. Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nature Clim. Change 3, 885–889 (2013)

  49. 49.

    et al. Commentary: Betting on negative emissions. Nature Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014)

Download references


The authors thank CSIRO Land and Water, CSIRO Energy, CSIRO Agriculture, and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere for funding and support, and J. Dowse of Clarity Thought Partners for assistance in preparing this paper and the National Outlook report.

Author information

Author notes

    • Ian Prosser

    Present address: Bureau of Meteorology, Childers Street, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia


  1. CSIRO, Black Mountain Laboratories, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia

    • Steve Hatfield-Dodds
    • , Heinz Schandl
    • , Francis H. S. Chiew
    • , Tom Harwood
    • , Rebecca McCallum
    •  & Ian Prosser
  2. Victoria University, Flinders Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

    • Philip D. Adams
  3. CSIRO, Julius Avenue, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia

    • Timothy M. Baynes
    •  & Alex Wonhas
  4. CSIRO, Energy Centre, Mayfield West, NSW 2304, Australia

    • Thomas S. Brinsmead
    •  & Paul W. Graham
  5. CSIRO, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, SA 5064, Australia

    • Brett A. Bryan
    •  & Martin Nolan
  6. CSIRO, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia

    • Mike Grundy
  7. CSIRO, Ecosciences Precinct, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia

    • Rod McCrea
    •  & Lisa E. McKellar
  8. CSIRO, Yarralumla Laboratories, Yarralumla, ACT 2601, Australia

    • David Newth


  1. Search for Steve Hatfield-Dodds in:

  2. Search for Heinz Schandl in:

  3. Search for Philip D. Adams in:

  4. Search for Timothy M. Baynes in:

  5. Search for Thomas S. Brinsmead in:

  6. Search for Brett A. Bryan in:

  7. Search for Francis H. S. Chiew in:

  8. Search for Paul W. Graham in:

  9. Search for Mike Grundy in:

  10. Search for Tom Harwood in:

  11. Search for Rebecca McCallum in:

  12. Search for Rod McCrea in:

  13. Search for Lisa E. McKellar in:

  14. Search for David Newth in:

  15. Search for Martin Nolan in:

  16. Search for Ian Prosser in:

  17. Search for Alex Wonhas in:


S.H-D. led the National Outlook project and oversaw all analysis, and led the drafting of this paper. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation, and commented on the draft paper, focusing as follows: S.H-D., study design, integration, and interpretation; H.S., material flows; P.D.A., CGE modelling; T.M.B., efficiency potential; T.S.B., transport; B.A.B. and M.N., land use; F.H.S.C. and I.P., water; P.W.G., stationary energy; M.G., agriculture; T.H., biodiversity; R.McCa., model linking, data integrity, analysis and charts; R.McCr., historical consumption trends; L.E.M., data integrity, analysis and charts, land and water analysis; D.N., global economics and climate; A.W., interpretation.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Hatfield-Dodds.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 4-6 and additional references.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Data.

About this article

Publication history







By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.