Perpetual economic growth is the most destructive idea of our time

There is no space in neo-liberal, capitalist economies for acknowledging planetary limits or social inequality.

The only goal of this economic ideology is to keep growing the economy and the stock market, and accumulate wealth.

The “free-market” cannot, and will not, place the environment ahead of potential sources of capital accumulation or profits. Environmental protection simply does not exist within this framework.

Some argue that we can “decouple” economic growth from the environment but there is little empirical basis for this argument.

Renewables can conceivably neutralise and decouple all carbon emissions from economic growth.

But there is not enough time to stop the current trajectory if renewables must replace fossil fuels in a continually growing economy:

“More growth means more energy demand, and more energy demand makes it all the more difficult to cover it with renewables in the short time we have left,” Professor Jason Hickel.

As long as the economy demands growth, natural resources will be depleted.

This economic system has also corrupted our politics - every political decision now revolves around economic growth and anyone who disagrees with this view faces the wrath of the corporate backed political establishment.

There is no sugar-coating it anymore, our economic system must change now to prevent total ecologic destruction.

Degrowth

A new economic system must conceive of a way to slow perpetual economic growth whilst still ensuring standards of living for the public.

“Degrowth” is likely the most popular formulation that provides a realistic option for our current crises.

According to Professor Jason Hickel, one of the leading voices on Degrowth:

“Degrowth is a planned reduction of energy and resource throughput (production, consumption and waste) designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being.”

Degrowth is seen as very radical to people who are conditioned to our current economic system.

But, in reality, it is a practical and sensible framework - even the IPCC has endorsed Degrowth principles as one of the best methods to stay within 1.5 - 2C warming.

The basic principle of Degrowth is that “growth” as we currently perceive it (increase in production) is not the same as social progress i.e. an increase in production of military drones is not of the same societal value as an increase in the production of lifesaving medicine.

Therefore, we should reorganise our economies around the production of goods and services that are good for the environment and society, rather than in the pursuit of economic growth.

This should look like planned reductions of production of things like fossil fuels (obviously), weapons, industrial meat, non-electric vehicles and luxury goods like private jets and super-yachts.

Investment should then flow into sectors that actually affect most people’s wellbeing but aren’t that great for corporate profits - affordable housing, public transport, healthcare, regenerative agriculture and so on.

Yes, this would likely cause a contraction of GDP, but the point of degrowth is that this is a planned transition,, meaning policies can be put in place to ensure this doesn’t negatively impact people’s wellbeing.

Such policies include wealth redistribution and increased social spending funded by progressive taxation, retraining people to move out of “sunset industries” and introducing compulsory living wages.

Indeed, research has found that most ecological and social indicators can be met by countries where annual per capita income is around (USD)$15,000 to $20,000.

This is not much for people living in high-income countries, but it is a plausible when basic needs (housing, education, healthcare and employment) are publicly provided.

It is necessary to note that Degrowth theorists explicitly argue that low-income countries - most of which are not doing notable damage to the environment or climate - are not the subject of Degrowth policies at least in their own right.

Rather, given colonial and neo-colonial exploitation of low-income country’s resources by high-income countries, Degrowth policies in the global north should also impact the global south:

“Right now, high-income nations maintain high levels of income and consumption through an ongoing process of net appropriation (of land, labour, resources and energy) from the South, through unequal exchange: in other words, they seek to depress the prices of labour and resources to below the global average price…

…Ending this exploitative relationship…would likely result in a reduction in the rate of surplus accumulation by economic elites, and a reduction in the growth driven by this accumulation in the North, but to the benefit of communities and ecologies in the global South.”

In short, wealthy countries would conceivably stop their continual search for new markets and resources in the global south (and then exploit them) by removing the need for continual growth and/or wealth accumulation.

* * *

There’s no denying that implementing the Degrowth agenda is going to be an uphill battle in our current growth driven society.

But the good news is that any policy which centres on wealth redistribution, sustaining planetary limits and circular economies all support Degrowth objectives.

Progressive tax systems, right to repair legislation, carbon taxes, regenerative agriculture, and universal healthcare are all policies that exist right now which challenge our dominant economic ideology of economic growth.

Much of this article was based on research by Professor Jason Hickel, we encourage you to read more of his work if this piece has sparked your interest.