Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

High sensitivity of metal footprint to national GDP in part explained by capital formation

Abstract

Global metal ore extraction tripled between 1970 and 2010 as metals are widely used in new infrastructure and advanced technology. Meanwhile, the energy and environmental costs of metal mining increase as lower ore grades are being exploited. The domestic use of metals has been found to reach a plateau when gross domestic product reaches US$15,000 per person. Here we present a quantification of the annual metal footprint (that is, the amount of metal ore extracted to satisfy the final demand of a country, including metals used abroad to produce goods that are then imported, and excluding metals used domestically to produce exports) for 43 large economies during 1995–2013. We use a panel analysis to assess short-term drivers of changes in metal footprint, and find that a 1% rise in gross domestic product raises the metal footprint by as much as 1.9% in the same year. Further, every percentage point increase in gross capital formation as a share of gross domestic product increased the metal footprint by 2% when controlling for gross domestic product. Other socioeconomic variables did not significantly influence the metal footprint. Finding ways to break the strong coupling of economic development and investment with metal ore extraction may be required to ensure resource access and a low-carbon future.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Global MF from 1995 to 2013.
Fig. 2: Growth rates of per capita MF versus per capita GDP or GCF share.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Graedel, T. E. & Cao, J. Metal spectra as indicators of development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20905–20910 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vidal, O., Goffé, B. & Arndt, N. Metals for a low-carbon society. Nat. Geosci. 6, 894–896 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schandl, H. & West, J. Material flows and material productivity in China, Australia, and Japan. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 352–364 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schaffartzik, A., Mayer, A., Eisenmenger, N. & Krausmann, F. Global patterns of metal extractivism, 1950–2010: providing the bones for the industrial society’s skeleton. Ecol. Econ. 122, 101–110 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bridge, G. Contested terrain: mining and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 205–259 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Özkaynak, B. et al. Mining Conflicts Around the World: Common Grounds from an Environmental Justice Perspective Report No. 7 (EJOLT, 2012).

  7. van der Voet, E. et al. Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metals Flows and Cycles, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel (United Nations Environment Programme, 2013).

  8. Franks, D. M. et al. Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7576–7581 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Graedel, T. E., Harper, E. M., Nassar, N. T., Nuss, P. & Reck, B. K. Criticality of metals and metalloids. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4257–4262 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Prior, T., Giurco, D., Mudd, G., Mason, L. & Behrisch, J. Resource depletion, peak minerals and the implications for sustainable resource management. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 577–587 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Northey, S., Mohr, S., Mudd, G., Weng, Z. & Giurco, D. Modelling future copper ore grade decline based on a detailed assessment of copper resources and mining. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 190–201 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reck, B. K. & Graedel, T. E. Challenges in metal recycling. Science 337, 690–695 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The Department of Energy’s Critical Materials Strategy (US Department of Energy, 2017); https://www.energy.gov/epsa/initiatives/department-energy-s-critical-materials-strategy

  14. Integrated Reform Plan for Promoting Ecological Progress (China’s State Council, 2015); http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/2015-09/21/content_2936327.htm

  15. Policy and Strategy for Raw Materials (European Commission, 2017); https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/policy-strategy_en

  16. Promoting Resource Diplomacy Along with Foreign Direct Investment in Japan (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2017); http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/2017/html/chapter3/c030303.html

  17. Henckens, M., Driessen, P., Ryngaert, C. & Worrell, E. The set-up of an international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of geologically scarce mineral resources. Resour. Policy 49, 92–101 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ali, S. H. et al. Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543, 367–372 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekins, P. et al. Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications. A Report of the International Resource Panel (United Nations Environment Program, 2016).

  20. Schandl, H. & West, J. Resource use and resource efficiency in the Asia–Pacific region. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 636–647 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Steinberger, J. K., Krausmann, F. & Eisenmenger, N. Global patterns of materials use: A socioeconomic and geophysical analysis. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1148–1158 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Binder, C. R., Graedel, T. E. & Reck, B. Explanatory variables for per capita stocks and flows of copper and zinc. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 111–132 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller, D. B., Wang, T. & Duval, B. Patterns of iron use in societal evolution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 182–188 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tilton, J. E. in World Metal Demand: Trends and Prospects (ed. Tilton, J. E.) 35–76 (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 2015).

  25. Jaunky, V. C. Is there a material Kuznets curve for aluminium? Evidence from rich countries. Resour. Policy 37, 296–307 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Crompton, P. Explaining variation in steel consumption in the OECD. Resour. Policy 45, 239–246 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guzmán, J. I., Nishiyama, T. & Tilton, J. E. Trends in the intensity of copper use in Japan since 1960. Resour. Policy 30, 21–27 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghosh, S. Steel consumption and economic growth: Evidence from India. Resour. Policy 31, 7–11 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rebiasz, B. Polish steel consumption, 1974–2008. Resour. Policy 49, 37–49 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts, M. C. Metal use and the world economy. Resour. Policy 22, 183–196 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wårell, L. & Olsson, A. Trends and developments in the intensity of steel use: an econometric analysis. In Securing the Future and 8th ICARD (Curran Associates, Inc., Skelleftea, 2009).

  32. Canas, Â., Ferrão, P. & Conceição, P. A new environmental Kuznets c urve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialised countries. Ecol. Econ. 46, 217–229 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Steinberger, J. K., Krausmann, F., Getzner, M., Schandl, H. & West, J. Development and dematerialization: an international study. PLoS ONE 8, e70385 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Radetzki, M. & Tilton, J. E. in World Metal Demand: Trends and Prospects (ed. Tilton, J. E.) 13–34 (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1990).

  35. Roberts, M. C. Predicting metal consumption: the case of US steel. Resour. Policy 16, 56–73 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H. & Moran, D. The footprint of using metals: new metrics of consumption and productivity. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 17, 369–388 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6271–6276 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Muñoz, P., Giljum, S. & Roca, J. The raw material equivalents of international trade empirical evidence for Latin America. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 881–897 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Weinzettel, J. & Kovanda, J. Assessing socioeconomic metabolism through hybrid life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 607–621 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schoer, K., Weinzettel, J., Kovanda, J., Giegrich, J. & Lauwigi, C. Raw material consumption of the European Union–concept, calculation method, and results. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8903–8909 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Giljum, S., Bruckner, M. & Martinez, A. Material footprint assessment in a global input–output framework. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 792–804 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Burke, P. J., Shahiduzzaman, M. & Stern, D. I. Carbon dioxide emissions in the short run: the rate and sources of economic growth matter. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 109–121 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input–output tables. J. Ind. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12715 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pauliuk, S. & Müller, D. B. The role of in-use stocks in the social metabolism and in climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 132–142 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6277–6282 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Allwood, J. M., Gutowski, T. G., Serrenho, A. C., Ach, S. & Worrell, E. Industry 1.61803: the transition to an industry with reduced material demand fit for a low carbon future. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. 375, 20160361 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. World Mineral Statistics (British Geological Survey, 2014).

  48. International Minerals Statistics and Information (US Geological Survey, Washington DC, 2014).

  49. Reichl, C., Schatz, M. & Zsak, G. World Mining Data - Minerals Production (International Organizing Committee for the World Mining Congresses, Vienna, 2017).

  50. Weisz, H. et al. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounting. A Compilation Guide (Eurostat and the European Commission, 2007).

  51. World Development Indicators (The World Bank, 2017); http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

  52. Hertwich, E. G. & Peters, G. P. Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6414–6420 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for X.Z. and C.W. was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project no. 71525007). We thank M. Kotchen, F. Novajan and J. Reuning-Scherer for advice when developing the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

E.G.H. led and designed the research, X.Z. and R.Wang performed the research, R.Wood assembled EXIOBASE. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and provided substantial input to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgar G. Hertwich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Data Tables, Figures and Discussion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, X., Wang, R., Wood, R. et al. High sensitivity of metal footprint to national GDP in part explained by capital formation. Nature Geosci 11, 269–273 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0091-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0091-y

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing