The climate crisis is a ticking time bomb, and our current economic system is the fuse. Can we defuse it without sacrificing growth?
At the recent COP30 negotiations, a familiar argument resurfaced: countries pursuing growth must accept rising emissions. This concession, made since the first COP, reflects the economic gap between developed and developing nations, with the latter having looser reduction targets. But as climate targets slip and warnings mount, the faith in growth-at-all-costs is cracking.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres calls for economies to move beyond GDP as a measure of progress, warning that our current accounting systems are steering us towards disaster. His remarks echo the post-growth school of economics, which asks the unthinkable: can we solve the climate crisis without constant expansion?
Post-growth economists propose new frameworks, like Amsterdam's 'doughnut economics' or New Zealand's 'wellbeing budget', that account for environmental damage. While the field has disagreements, particularly on the extent of de-growth measures, proponents agree that a radical rethink is necessary with the planet at its limits.
"Economic growth is a near-mythical concept to economists and politicians, but wishful thinking won't solve the climate crisis," says Tim Jackson, a leading post-growth economist. "Post-growth economics offers more choices, realism, and insights into human prosperity. It's not about regressing but about breaking free from intellectual constraints."
The roots of post-growth can be traced to the controversial book 'Limits to Growth', published in the 1970s. Some argue it underestimated humanity's adaptability, but this technological optimism underpins the 'green growth' idea: that the world economy can expand without catastrophe.
Countries like the UK, France, Germany, and the US have increased GDP per capita since the 2000s while cutting carbon emissions, seemingly decoupling growth from emissions. However, experts contest this evidence, arguing that it focuses on annual emissions rather than their accumulation.
"It's the accumulated stock of carbon dioxide that causes climate change, not the annual flows," says Peter Victor, an emeritus professor. "We're far from decoupling economic growth from the stock of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Moreover, the study of 'planetary boundaries' has widened our understanding of economic activity's damage beyond carbon emissions. This research identifies nine ecological processes, including climate change, ocean acidification, and ozone depletion, and defines safe zones for each. The most recent check found seven of these boundaries dangerously breached.
When applied to living standards, the study reveals a trade-off: no nation has met its residents' basic needs while staying within biophysical limits. The better off a country's residents, the more environmental ceilings are broken, indicating unsustainable growth.
Three contemporary positions emerge:
- Green Keynesians believe in state-led green growth, advocating for a Green New Deal and public investment in green infrastructure and jobs.
- Green capitalists hope for sustainable growth through market reforms and technology, pushing ideas like carbon pricing and deregulation.
- Post-growth economists argue that continued growth is impossible within planetary boundaries, prioritizing wellbeing and reducing overconsumption.
The de-growth movement, a high-profile post-growth incarnation, calls for radical scaling down of production and consumption, believing the 'Limits to Growth' scenario is already unfolding. Others within post-growth economics take a more agnostic view, arguing that policymakers should shift priorities away from growth to other prosperity measures that improve wellbeing.
Under the Paris Agreement, global carbon emissions must fall 45% by 2030, with net zero by 2050, to stick to the 1.5C target. The path to this destination and the possibility of growth remain uncertain, leaving us with a $111.1tn question mark.
