The planet is in peril, and the usual economic growth strategies are not cutting it. We need to rethink our approach, and fast.
At the recent COP30 negotiations, a familiar argument was presented: developing nations must sacrifice environmental concerns for economic growth. This idea, rooted in the concession that prosperity comes at the cost of environmental harm, has been a guiding principle since the first COP in the 1990s.
However, the data paints a worrying picture. Despite global GDP per capita reaching new heights in 2024, so did annual carbon emissions. As climate targets slip and warnings mount about potential tipping points, the faith in growth-at-all-costs is starting to crack.
Enter the post-growth economists, a school of thought gaining traction. They ask the unthinkable: can we solve the climate crisis without constant economic expansion?
Post-growth economists advocate for new frameworks that consider environmental damage, such as Amsterdam's 'doughnut economics' or New Zealand's 'wellbeing budget'. While there are disagreements within the field, particularly on the extent of de-growth measures, the consensus is clear: with the planet on the brink, a radical rethink is necessary.
"Economic growth is like a sacred cow to many economists and politicians," says Tim Jackson, a leading post-growth economist. "But we can't wish away the climate crisis. Post-growth economics offers a more realistic and insightful path to human prosperity."
The roots of this movement can be traced back to a controversial book, 'Limits to Growth', published in the 1970s. Some argue that it underestimated humanity's ability to adapt, but others see it as a warning that has gone unheeded.
The concept of 'green growth' is based on technological optimism, believing that the world economy can expand without catastrophe. However, experts contest this, arguing that the focus should be on the accumulated stock of carbon dioxide, not just annual emissions.
When we consider the broader picture of economic activity's impact on the planet, it becomes clear that carbon emissions are just one piece of the puzzle. The study of 'planetary boundaries' reveals that economic growth is damaging multiple ecological processes, from climate change to ocean acidification.
A recent planetary health check found that seven out of nine boundaries were dangerously breached. This raises a critical question: can we improve living standards without breaking environmental limits?
Researchers at the University of Leeds examined this trade-off, applying planetary boundaries to over 150 countries. Their findings were stark: no nation had met the basic needs of its residents while staying within biophysical limits. The better off a country's residents, the more environmental boundaries were crossed.
So, how can we break this relationship? Ecological economists are divided into three camps.
Green Keynesians believe in a state-led transition to green growth, advocating for a Green New Deal and public investment. On the other hand, green capitalists hope for sustainable growth through market reforms and technology.
The post-growth camp, however, disagrees fundamentally. They argue that continued growth is incompatible with the planet's boundaries. The de-growth movement, a prominent post-growth faction, calls for radical reductions in production and consumption.
Others within post-growth economics take a more neutral stance, arguing that the debate over green growth misses the point. Instead, policymakers should prioritize wellbeing and shift focus away from growth entirely.
As we navigate the path towards the Paris Agreement's targets, the question remains: can we grow while saving the planet? It's a $111.1tn question, and one that demands urgent attention and action.
