Degrowth vs Green Growth
The Argument That GDP Itself Is the Problem
Two groups of economists both want to save the planet — and they think the other side would destroy it.
The Idea
The standard assumption in climate policy is that we can decouple economic growth from environmental damage: keep the GDP rising, but make it cleaner. Renewable energy, efficiency gains, carbon pricing — these are the tools of green growth, and they dominate mainstream policy thinking from the EU's Green Deal to most central bank climate scenarios. The logic is seductive: technology improves, emissions per unit of output fall, and eventually the economy grows while the planet heals. Degrowth economists think this is a fantasy. Their critique isn't anti-technology — it's about thermodynamics and political economy. Every unit of economic output requires energy and materials, and while efficiency improves at the margins, total resource consumption has historically risen with GDP regardless of those gains. This is sometimes called the Jevons paradox: more efficient engines led to more coal use in the 19th century, not less, because efficiency made energy cheaper and demand expanded. Degrowthers argue the same dynamic plays out across the whole economy today. The degrowth alternative isn't recession or austerity — its proponents are careful to distinguish between the two. The proposal is a deliberate, managed reduction in throughput in wealthy economies: fewer goods produced and consumed, shorter working weeks, public investment in care and culture over manufacturing, and different measures of social progress than output per head. Whether that's economically coherent or politically imaginable is the live debate.
In the World
In 2021, a team of researchers led by Jason Hickel at the Autonomous University of Barcelona published a paper in the journal Lancet Planetary Health that landed like a grenade in the green growth camp. They modelled what it would actually take to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming while maintaining current growth trajectories, and found that even under optimistic assumptions about renewable deployment and efficiency, high-income economies would need to reduce energy use so dramatically that it was effectively incompatible with continued growth. The paper didn't advocate degrowth as an ideology — it simply ran the numbers. The backlash was immediate and fierce. Economists at institutions like the IMF and OECD pushed back, pointing to examples like Sweden and Denmark, which have managed to reduce absolute emissions while growing. Green growth advocates argue that Hickel's model underestimates the pace of technological change and overstates the material intensity of service-based economies. But the debate shifted something. The European Parliament held its first formal hearing on degrowth in 2023 — a concept that would have been dismissed as fringe just a decade earlier. Even mainstream institutions began acknowledging that green growth required assumptions about technological progress that were, at minimum, not yet proven. The argument had moved from the academic fringe to the edge of policy.
Why It Matters
This debate matters beyond environmental policy because it asks a more fundamental question: what is an economy for? Green growth assumes the current structure of the economy is largely correct, and needs cleaner fuel. Degrowth asks whether the goal of perpetual expansion is itself the source of the problem — not just for the climate, but for wellbeing, inequality, and what people actually find meaningful in their lives. For anyone making personal financial decisions, there's something quietly relevant here. The degrowth argument isn't telling you to earn less or save nothing — but it does challenge the idea that more consumption is always progress, that a growing portfolio in a shrinking world is straightforwardly good news, or that 'the economy is doing well' and 'people are doing well' are the same statement. You don't have to pick a side in a technical macroeconomics debate to find the underlying question worth sitting with: if growth stopped being the goal, what would we optimise for instead?
A Question to Ponder
If your own financial goals were measured in something other than accumulated wealth — time, relationships, ecological impact — would you make different decisions than you do now?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable