The degrowth movement is calling for an end to economic growth, as measured by GDP, and shrinkage of the economies of developed countries. Developing countries should use this space in world GDP created by the contraction of developed economies to develop - freed from the unequal and exploitative restrictions imposed by global capitalism. Degrowth advocates do not believe in green growth, the compatibility of continued GDP growth within planetary boundaries, or that technological solutions exist.

Degrowthers diagnose a real problem. Unfortunately, the downsizing of western economies is not a solution. At least seven reasons can be highlighted why degrowth is insufficient.

<p><a href="https://www.overshootday.org/">Earth Overshoot Day</a>, &quot;when humanity has used all the biological resources that the Earth regenerates during the entire year&quot;, fell on 28 July 2022. In 1971, it fell on 25 December. This acceleration in using biological resources means that humanity is overshooting planetary <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259855">boundaries</a>. Our ecological <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/facts-about-our-ecological-crisis-are-incontrovertible-we-must-take-action">crisis</a> is an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2602943/">overshoot</a> crisis, of which anthropogenic climate change and <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.12380">biodiversity</a> losses are symptoms. The full <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full">scale</a> &quot;of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms - including humanity - is so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.&quot; We face a “<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full">ghastly future</a>.”</p>
<p>To avoid this, the degrowth movement is calling for an end to economic growth (as measured by GDP) and shrinkage of the economies of developed countries. Developing countries should <a href="https://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Kerschner-2010.pdf">use</a> this space in world GDP created by the contraction of developed economies to develop - freed from the unequal and exploitative restrictions imposed by global capitalism. Degrowth advocates do not believe in green growth, the compatibility of continued GDP growth within planetary boundaries, or that technological solutions exist - they <a href="https://earth.org/techno-optimism/">reject</a> techno-optimism or any possibility of <a href="https://gaiageld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/decoupling_debunked_evidence_and_argumen.pdf">decoupling</a> between growth and the material footprint of nations.</p>
<h1><strong>Limitations of Degrowth</strong></h1>
<p>Degrowthers diagnose a real problem. Unfortunately, the downsizing of western economies is not a solution. At least seven reasons can be highlighted why degrowth is insufficient.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth will not decrease decarbonization</strong></h2>
<p>Most (<a href="https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions">63%</a>) of current carbon emissions come from developing countries - where it will only continue to increase in the foreseeable future. The 2022 <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022">Emissions Gap Report</a> notes (p. 67) that “virtually the entire future increase in global primary energy demand is expected to occur in these [developing] economies.”  Even if western economies are shrunk, they would still be extensive and emit significant carbon.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth will make matters worse</strong></h2>
<p>Degrowth may be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800910004209">dirty</a>. Global redistribution, as degrowthers envisage, will increase aggregate consumption through a well-known &quot;growth through redistribution&quot; effect. Inequality <a href="https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/redistribution-inequality-and-sustainable-growth-reconsidering-evidence">reduces</a> economic growth, hence the opposite will raise growth.</p>
<p>Businesses may substitute more expensive cleaner production techniques for cheaper but more polluting technologies. Governments would also not be able to borrow further to spend on social and basic needs or environmental protection.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth is politically infeasible</strong></h2>
<p>Because of the <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.193">endowment effect</a>, people would be unlikely to vote for politicians who propose lowering their levels of GDP per capita, especially in certain countries, at least if it is to fight climate change. A 2022 poll found that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/us/politics/climate-change-manchin-biden.html">only 1%</a> of USA voters listed climate change as the most crucial challenge. And politicians, being generally subject to a <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.193">status quo bias</a>, would be reluctant to propose such a radical policy. As proponents <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x">acknowledge</a> “political parties that have put forward degrowth ideas have received limited support in elections.”</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth is expensive</strong></h2>
<p>Degrowth is not only politically infeasible because voters would not give up their incomes but also because it is a costly way to tackle the ecological crisis. It has been <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43664658">calculated</a> that if the world shrinks GDP per capita by 10% (around US$7,000 billion), it will reduce carbon emissions by about 3.3 gigatons, meaning a cost of US$2,100 per ton of emissions. A recent study published in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9605864/"><em>Nature</em></a> put the social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) at US$185 per ton of emissions. Degrowthers want us to pay more than ten times the price.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth policies are disappointing</strong></h2>
<p>A recent inventory of degrowth policies identified <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622023629#:~:text=The%20study%20outlined%20three%20broad,to%20a%20convivial%2C%20participatory%20society">530</a> proposals associated with the movement. This proliferation is because the degrowth movement is  “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622023629#:~:text=The%20study%20outlined%20three%20broad,to%20a%20convivial%2C%20participatory%20society">multi-faceted</a>&quot;. It has become a rally-cry for anyone with a societal and environmental grievance, whether against capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, or utilitarianism.</p>
<p>Because of the confusion this proliferation creates, a recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622023629#:~:text=The%20study%20outlined%20three%20broad,to%20a%20convivial%2C%20participatory%20society">paper</a> prioritized these into an “Iceberg model of degrowth policy proposals.&quot; At the top of the iceberg, prominent policies are universal basic income, work-time reductions, job guarantees, maximum income caps, non-for-profit cooperation, eco-villages, and housing cooperatives.</p>
<p>None of these are novel and most are, or have already been, implemented - most extensively in market economies. Furthermore, there is no attempt to link these policy proposals to decoupling - how many carbon emissions would they eliminate? How fast? No evidence is provided.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth is irresponsible</strong></h2>
<p>The lack of evidence on the carbon reduction that the iceberg model of policies will achieve - and achieve soon, as the matter is pressing - is a concern. We would not imagine subjecting human populations to potentially dangerous experimental drugs without rigorously testing their efficacy. Why embrace the &quot;medicine&quot; prescribed by the degrowth movement? Olivier Simar-Casanova <a href="https://www.ecosceptique.com/60-le-point-sur-la-decroissance/">described</a> this ethical and moral problem with degrowth clearly:</p>
<blockquote><em>“Global warming is a serious issue, and claiming to respond to it with solutions of uncertain carbon efficiency, which we do not know how to implement in practice, is irresponsible.”</em></blockquote>
<p>The dangers of shackling economies without any evidence as to the likely outcome are that it would leave the world much <a href="https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Leopold-Aschenbrenner_Existential-risk-and-growth_.pdf">more exposed</a> and vulnerable to shocks, make the adjustment to a zero-carbon-emitting economy <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157">more costly</a>, and raise the risk of conflict by turning the economy into a <a href="https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-what-we-owe-the-future">zero-sum game</a>.</p>
<h2><strong>Degrowth is hypocritical</strong></h2>
<p>Degrowth is no solution to the ecological crisis because it is, at its roots, hypocritical. As one <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-dangerous-myth-of-degrowth/">commentator</a> put it:</p>
<blockquote><em>“It is one thing to advocate the end of economic growth if you have no actual fear of poverty. If you are struggling to keep yourself warm and fed, on the other hand, the idea of self-denial – still less of shrinking the economy – will have rather less appeal. Degrowth is a middle–class luxury, an indulgence to be conducted from the comfort of your sofa with its electronic foot-raiser […] People who express disgust with consumerism have a tendency to disapprove of other people’s while overlooking their own.”</em></blockquote>
<h1><strong>Conclusion</strong></h1>
<p>Neither degrowth nor the more mainstream green growth approach offer viable solutions for the ecological crisis. Worse, a recent editorial in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00723-1">Nature</a> magazine pointed out that the disagreement between degrowth and green growth “<em>is impeding action. It’s time for researchers to end their debate. The world needs them to focus on the greater goals of stopping catastrophic environmental destruction and improving well-being</em>.” </p>
<p>This is a distraction that cannot be afforded because GDP growth and population growth are, in any case, in decline. We do not need a degrowth experiment to slow it down. We live in the <a href="https://rootsofprogress.org/technological-stagnation">Great Stagnation</a>. Society is gradually <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/46/1/105/6378308?login=false">ossifying</a>, and with it, its supply of innovative <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x">science</a> and <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/IdeaPF.pdf">ideas</a>, which remain, however remotely, our only chance of avoiding the premature curtailment of humanity’s potential.</p>
<p><em>illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.</em></p>
<h6>Photo by Afbeelding van <a href="https://pixabay.com/nl/users/anhot-4256108/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=2804437">anhot</a> via <a href="https://pixabay.com/nl/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=2804437">Pixabay</a>​ </h6>
<h6>​ </h6>


Seven reasons why degrowth is no solution to the ecological crisis

Climate technologies are ideas that are turned into innovations that will reduce and even eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and help us adapt to a changing climate. A climate technology revolution entails the invention and deployment of radically new — breakthrough — technologies to accomplish this, and not over the long run, but as soon as possible.

<p>Climate technologies are ideas that are turned into innovations that will reduce and even eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and help us adapt to a changing climate. A climate technology revolution entails the invention and deployment of radically new — breakthrough — technologies to accomplish this, and not over the long run, but as soon as possible.</p>
<p>We <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/progress-made-cutting-emissions_en">have</a>, and can make even more progress in reducing CO2 emissions, by <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.53">incrementally</a> improving and rolling out existing technologies. This is also largely the gist of the IPCC <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/">Sixth Assessment Report</a> (AR6). The report contains an extensive discussion of the need for a systemic approach to innovation, invoking the concept of innovation systems to ensure the broadest adoption of emission reduction technologies.</p>
<p>However, the AR6 report also stresses that “aggressive action” is needed to limit global warming and that the window of opportunity to do so “<em>is rapidly closing, and with it the opportunity to prevent the worst impacts of global warming</em>.” The report thus stresses the necessity for moving beyond technologies that will only reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but that will remove existing GHG stocks from the atmosphere. In particular, the report calls for further development of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, stating that “<em>The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieve</em>d” (IPCC AR6 2022: p.63).</p>
<p>While it does not state it explicitly, the IPCC AR6 is in essence a call for a climate technology revolution. Given the urgency of the matter — that we seem <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/15c-degree-goal-extremely-unlikely-ipcc/a-42154601">unlikely</a> to limit global warming to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels — and the dangers of crossing climate <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0">tipping</a> points — the incentives to engineer the climate is indeed stacking up, as <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.53">Scott Barrett</a> in 2009 thought they would eventually do.</p>
<blockquote><strong>The question is: how can we ignite a climate technology revolution?</strong></blockquote>
<p>The current global approach, predominantly, is to view climate change as requiring an <strong>aggregate effort</strong>. Hence the UN’s <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120304706">Conference of Parties (COPs)</a> approach using global climate conferences to galvanize support and commitment from national states through “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs). Linked to this is the innovation system approach that attempts to percolate incremental technological innovations throughout the global economy, including various (unsynchronized) efforts at incentivizing further R&amp;D in climate technologies through carbon price increases. Take for example the European Union’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_nl">Emissions Trading Scheme</a> or the US’s <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/">ARPA-E</a> innovation financing scheme.</p>
<p>While the aggregate effort approach is very necessary, and cannot be dispensed with, it suffers two potentially fatal flaws. First, it is very time-consuming. It is not the optimal way to best address a challenge where time is a critical factor. <a href="https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf">Svante Arrhenius</a> warned in 1896 that human-induced carbon emissions would cause global warming; it took a century before the world adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Second, it is not very effective, being subject to coordination and governance failures, for a variety of reasons that Nobel Laureate <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26189419">Jean Tirole</a> amongst others, stressed. Given a system of world governance based on nation-states with its roots in the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/41887235">1648</a> Westphalian system, the collective action problem posed by climate change may be insurmountable. Indeed, <a href="https://www.scottbarrett.org/climate-change">Scott Barrett</a> has rightly pointed out that “Climate change is probably the most difficult collective action problem in human history.” Unsurprisingly, following COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03088-z">Nature</a> magazine reflected the exasperation of scientists with the heading “<em>COP architects furious at lack of climate justice at pivotal summit</em>.”</p>
<p>To ignite a climate technology revolution, we may need to complement the aggregate effort approach by a <strong>single best effort</strong> public good approach. This is a global public good that can be provided by a single country or group of countries (e.g., the EU). The concept of a single best effort can be <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199211890.001.0001/acprof-9780199211890-chapter-2">illustrated</a> with the example of a meteorite on a collision course with Earth. It is not necessary for every nation-state to try and come up with a technology to avert disaster. If the technologically most advanced country, or even the most advanced private firms, assume the responsibility to develop a technology that can divert the meteorite, it will provide a global public service — indeed a massive positive externality — to the whole world. The development of mRNA vaccines against the SARS-COV 2 virus is another <a href="https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/the_meaning_of_moonshot_lessons_in_leadership_to_last_a_lifetime">example</a>, where the single best efforts of only a few firms generated a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w">breakthrough</a> technology in a record time, and saved hundreds of millions of lives.</p>
<p>Single best efforts can, through utilising <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02093-7">moonshot</a> and <a href="https://marianamazzucato.com/books/mission-economy">mission</a>-orientation approaches, and being complimented by <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/05/67057/when-science-fiction-inspires-real-technology/">science fiction prototyping</a>, ignite a climate technology revolution. Note that such an approach is not suitable for all types of carbon emission-reducing and adaptation technologies, because many would need local adjustment and knowledge better suited to a decentralized approach. It is better suited for those technologies with general application — e.g. CDR or <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01243-0">solar geoengineering</a>.</p>
<p>Governments and private firms can lead single best efforts for such radical technologies. For example, the government of <a href="https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/moonshot/top.html">Japan</a> launched several moonshot targets. And the richest entrepreneur in 2022, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/business/elon-musk-worlds-richest.html">Elon Musk</a>, has built his entire private business empire on radical technological revolutions. The <a href="https://www.xprize.org/home">X-Prize Foundation</a> has just recently issued the largest <a href="https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/why-innovation-prizes-fail/">incentive prize</a> in history — offering US$100 million for carbon removal technology that can be scaled.</p>
<p>The challenges are, once the development of technologies are underway to successfully engineer and manage the climate, to ensure that its use and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-017-0170-3">diffusion</a> are appropriately <a href="https://theglobalobservatory.org/2021/11/is-the-global-climate-governance-system-working/">governed</a>, including better gauging, as well as measuring and minimizing the <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/risks-rewards-possible-ramifications-geoengineering-earths-climate-180971666/">risk and rewards</a> of geoengineering and its <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/geoengineering-and-environmental-ethics-80061230/">ethical</a> dimensions. Although important and difficult, as the situations regarding <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/28/can-we-stop-robots-outsmarting-humanity-artificial-intelligence-singularity">artificial intelligence</a>, or that of the equitable distribution of COVID-19 <a href="https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/06/18/vaccines-as-the-new-oil">vaccines</a> illustrate, this may still be less of a challenge than the collective action problem.</p>
<p>The IPCC has consistently since its inception in 1988 delivered reports stressing “<em>the evidence is clear.</em>” As a result, the world is moving in the right direction, but at a glacial pace. It may be time to heat up the race.</p>
<p><em>This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/climate-conscious/how-can-we-ignite-a-climate-technology-revolution-bf2909aefd9f">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.</em></p>


You can’t miss it!

Wim Naudé

Wim Naudé

Seven reasons why degrowth is no solution to the ecological crisis

How Can We Ignite a Climate Technology Revolution?

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?