Degrowth vs Green Growth

15 November 2022

Given the climate crisis that we are currently facing, some environmentalists have called for a new, post-capitalist economic structure called degrowth. There are many critics of degrowth, including other environmentalists who support the idea of green growth instead. In a recent debate at the University of Oxford, leading scholars on the subject, Professor Jason Hickel and Professor Sam Fankhauser, each gave compelling arguments for these different ideologies. This article will define these concepts and summarise key points on both sides.

What is Degrowth?

Jason Hickel defines degrowth as a planned and democratic reduction of less necessary forms of production in rich countries, in a just way. Degrowth calls us to rethink the current economic structure so that income is spread more equally across society, and resources are not depleted for economic gain.

Arguments for Degrowth

Exponents of degrowth believe that the current way in which governments plan to reduce harm on the planet will not be achieved at the rate that is needed if growth remains to be such a central goal. They claim that over the last 40-50 years, politicians have promised and failed to reduce the harmful effects on the planet because they have mainly been focusing on increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Degrowthers support the use of clean technologies, such as renewable energies, carbon capture devices etc., but they do not think that we should rely on technology to resolve climate change. This is because if we rely on technology and it ends up not being as efficient as we had hoped, then there will be no escape plan to save humanity. Furthermore, even if technology enables us to reduce emissions to the extent that is needed to achieve a global warming level of only 1.5 degrees Celsius, there remain other environmental issues that will be affected. Climate change is one of the nine planetary boundaries that we must respect in order to avoid a major decline in environmental conditions - four of which we have already overstepped. The planetary boundaries that we have overstepped are biosphere integrity, land-system change, biochemical flows and climate change. Those at a safe level are freshwater use, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion and novel entities. Growth not only produces emissions, therefore increasing climate change, it also requires major material extraction for resource consumption, which impacts other planetary boundaries such as land use and biodiversity.

Hickel argues that as it stands, our economic system is inherently unstable because it is expansionary, therefore when growth does not occur, the economy crashes, which affects the poorest people in society the worst. He states that degrowth would be a fundamentally different system which would avoid economic collapses, leading to a more equal society. He argues that this is the only way that we will be able to achieve climate goals, such as staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming and staying within the confines of the planetary boundaries.

What is Green Growth?

Green growth is the model in which economic growth continues in the form of GDP, but climate solutions are put in place in order to do this in a way that respects nature.

Arguments for Green Growth

Sam Fankhauser affirms that GDP is a good indicator of important outcomes, such as health, poverty and climate adaptability. He makes the case that the more GDP a country has, the more financially equipped it will be to fight climate change. For example, the ability to pay for research and technology has meant that scientists could effectively deal with ozone depletion, which has now significantly reduced as a problem. Therefore, he suggests that increased prosperity helps to fight climate change. He believes that technology will be a driving force in reducing the amount of energy we use per amount of GDP increase, meaning that economic growth can continue without compromising the environment.

Furthermore, Fankhauser states that green growth can be a better way to engage the public in the climate cause, because the more people are financially comfortable, the more they can focus on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that when people face financial hardship they have to focus on more immediate concerns, rather than environmental ones.

Finally, another key argument for green growth over degrowth is that it is more feasible to achieve; completely dismantling and rebuilding the economic system is not a realistic solution. At ESGmark, we believe that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We think that green growth is the most pragmatic solution, and that focus should be placed on implementing new technologies and industries that help to reduce climate change, such as renewable energy.

Do you think that we should aim for degrowth or green growth? Let us know your views by emailing info@esgmark.co.uk.