by – L. Richardson
The degrowth movement is gaining traction, but its true nature remains hidden from many. This insidious ideology, masquerading as environmentalism, impacts our economic prosperity and freedom. The degrowth movement is antihuman, and its advocates are OK with that, pushing for policies that would drag society back to a preindustrial era, stripping away modern comforts and plunging millions into hardship.
Economic growth has been vital to lifting billions out of poverty and driving innovations that improve our world. Yet, degrowth activists, often sheltered from real-world struggles, seek to sacrifice our progress on the altar of misguided environmental zealotry. This article will expose the antihuman agenda of the degrowth movement, highlight the vital role of economic growth in environmental stewardship, and show how market-driven solutions, not regressive fantasies, are the path to a sustainable and prosperous future.
The Degrowth Movement Unveiled
The degrowth movement is a political, economic, and social movement that advocates for the voluntary reduction of economic production and consumption to achieve environmental sustainability, social equity, and human well-being 1. Degrowth proponents argue that the current economic growth model is unsustainable and leads to ecological degradation, resource depletion, and social inequality 1.
Explanation of the degrowth movement’s principles and goals.
Fundamentally, the degrowth movement is driven by activists drawing inspiration from theorists like André Gorz, Ivan Illich, Serge Latouche, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Cornelius Castoriadis, and Murray Bookchin — a movement committed to forging a world that respects Earth’s limits and promotes a more fulfilling human existence 1. The COVID-19 pandemic has already introduced the notion and practice of ‘frugal abundance,’ where people and governments question what is essential and how basic needs can be easily satisfied 1. Degrowth advocates argue that our focus should shift from quantity and scarcity to enhancing the quality of life through respecting Earth’s limits, engaging in its regeneration, and fostering solidarity and harmony with nature 1.
Degrowth culture seeks a personal and societal ‘decolonization’ from the pervasive growth ‘imaginary,’ nurturing a transformative culture of minimalism, slowing down, and valuing diverse human and ecological qualities and the cyclical dynamics of life 1. The degrowth approach to the economy is characterized by ‘open relocalization,’ a three-pronged economic, political, and cultural strategy that favors localizing production, distributing collective products, sharing knowledge and skills for low-tech and ethical local decision-making within a direct democracy, and celebrating diverse cultures and environments to enrich life and biodiversity 1.
Highlight the assimilation of degrowth ideas into the mainstream.
The degrowth movement has gained traction in recent years, with its ideas being increasingly discussed and debated in the mainstream media and academic circles 1. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the advantages of locally accessible goods and services, sharing knowledge and skills in solidarity, direct democracy, and an economy oriented around needs rather than money, profit, debts, and growth 1 [20].
The assertion that these ideas portend dire consequences for economic well-being.
Critics of the degrowth movement argue that reducing economic activity would lead to job losses, reduced living standards, and a decline in overall financial well-being. While degrowth advocates aim to reframe and recreate economies that respect Earth’s limits to achieve socio-political equity and ecological sustainability, some see their proposals as threatening economic prosperity and progress. The potential negative impact on job opportunities and financial well-being is a significant concern that should be addressed and not overlooked.
The Importance of Economic Growth
Economic growth is a relatively recent phenomenon that has been instrumental in lifting societies out of widespread poverty. 2 Before the Industrial Revolution, incomes were primarily determined by population size, trapping societies in the Malthusian trap of abject poverty. 2 However, the Industrial Revolution enabled economies to break free from this constraint, allowing for substantial income growth and improved living standards. 2 This history of progress should reassure us about the benefits of economic growth.
Historical context: economic growth as a recent and vital norm.
The history of economic growth is the story of how societies overcame pervasive poverty. In regions that experienced substantial economic development, access to food, education, and healthcare improved dramatically, significantly reducing child mortality rates and improving living conditions [21]. Economic growth has played a crucial role in reducing poverty and improving living standards, underscoring its importance in societal development [22]. Conversely, countries that did not achieve economic growth remained impoverished, lacking access to these essential goods and services.
Benefits of sustained economic growth for improving living standards.
Sustained economic growth is crucial for raising living standards and overcoming poverty. 3 4 As per capita GDP increases, the typical American’s material standard of living improves, allowing for greater access to goods and services. 3 Furthermore, productivity growth enables people to achieve a higher standard of living without working longer hours or to enjoy the same standard of living while spending fewer hours in paid labor. 3
While GDP measures market activity and is not a direct measure of economic welfare, broadly shared growth in per capita GDP is a strong indicator of improved living standards across the income distribution. 3 This contrasts with periods of growth accompanied by widening income inequality, where the benefits are not shared equitably. 3
The reluctance of average people to trade modern luxuries for a less dynamic society.
Over the past few decades, economic growth has provided job opportunities and lifted millions out of extreme poverty, raising living standards globally. 4 While solid growth is necessary but not sufficient for economic development, the benefits of growth have been substantial, particularly for the poor, who spend a large portion of their income on basic necessities like food and clothing [23]. 4
However, the degrowth movement advocates for a voluntary reduction in economic production and consumption, which could reverse these gains and plunge societies back into hardship. 1 Given the modern comforts and luxuries that economic growth has enabled, it is unlikely that the average person would willingly trade their current standard of living for a less dynamic, preindustrial society. 4
The Disconnect of Degrowth Advocates
Critique of upper-class intellectuals pushing degrowth without experiencing poverty.
Upper-class intellectuals in rich countries shouldn’t be recommending degrowth because they have never been confronted with poverty. 5 These privileged individuals, sheltered from the realities of economic hardship, advocate for policies that could plunge millions back into destitution without fully comprehending the consequences. 5
Evidence of economic growth reducing poverty and improving living standards.
The track record of economic growth in reducing poverty and ameliorating living standards is exceptional, so automatic measures to curb economic growth will worsen the plight of humanity. 5 Using income and non-income poverty measures, Numerous statistical studies have found a strong association between national per capita income and national poverty indicators [24]. 6 One recent study consisting of 80 countries covering four decades found that, on average, the income of the bottom one-fifth of the population rose one-for-one with the overall growth of the economy as defined by per capita GDP [24]. 6
Argument that economic growth improves the environment over the long term.
Proponents must remember that economic growth improves the environment over the long term, especially in more affluent countries with better institutions and high human capital levels. 5 Rising incomes raise environmental consciousness because prosperity affords people time to invest in the environment. 5 Growing affluence also leads to safer service jobs that don’t entail plundering the physical environment. 5 Furthermore, environmental protection itself contributes to economic growth, as businesses develop and sell air pollution control technologies, sewage and water treatment facilities, and other environmental solutions. 7
Upper-class intellectuals in rich countries shouldn’t be recommending degrowth because they have never faced poverty. 5 These privileged folks, sheltered from economic hardship, push for policies that could drag millions back into destitution without grasping the consequences. 5
The track record of economic growth reducing poverty and enhancing living standards is exceptional, so measures curbing growth will worsen humanity’s plight. 5 Many studies using income and non-income poverty measures found a strong link between national per capita income and national poverty indicators. 6 One recent 80-country, four-decade study showed the bottom fifth’s income rose proportionally with overall per capita GDP growth. 6
Proponents forget that economic growth improves the environment in the long term, especially in more affluent countries with strong institutions and human capital. 5 Rising incomes raise environmental awareness because prosperity allows investing time in the environment. 5 Growing affluence also leads to cleaner service jobs that don’t ravage the physical environment. 5 Furthermore, environmental protection contributes to economic growth as businesses develop and sell air pollution control tech, sewage and water treatment facilities, and other green solutions. 7
Environmental and Economic Realities
Decoupling of economic growth from carbon emissions in rich and developing countries [25].
Reducing emissions while growing the economy is possible, but this decoupling needs to happen faster. 8 Historically, CO2 emissions have been strongly correlated with income levels, particularly for low-to-middle incomes. The more prosperous a country, the more CO2 it emits due to increased energy use, often from burning fossil fuels. However, this relationship no longer holds true at higher income levels. Many countries have achieved economic growth while reducing emissions, effectively decoupling the two. 8
The U.K. serves as an example of this decoupling. Since 1990, the U.K.’s GDP has increased substantially while its annual CO2 emissions per capita have fallen. 8 France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Czechia, and Romania are other examples of countries where this decoupling has occurred. 8
This decoupling has become more pronounced since the turn of the millennium. While consumption-based emissions continued to rise in countries like the U.S. throughout the 1990s, they have dropped significantly since 2005, alongside a rise in GDP. 8 There are two critical reasons for this decline in emissions. Firstly, some countries have decoupled energy use and economic growth, with GDP increasing. In contrast, total energy use has remained flat or fallen. Secondly, and most importantly, countries are replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon energy sources, allowing for increased energy production without the associated emissions. 8
It would be inaccurate to assume that the reduction in emissions in rich countries was solely achieved by offshoring production overseas. Consumption-based emissions, which adjust for emissions from imported or exported goods, have also fallen in these countries. While some emissions have been exported, other drivers of the decline exist. 8
These countries demonstrate that economic growth is not incompatible with reducing emissions. The critical question is whether decarbonization can occur rapidly enough and across more countries, a goal made more realistic by the continued decline in the cost of low-carbon technologies. 8
Transition to less energy-intensive jobs in the service sector.
The transition from goods-producing sectors to service-based employment has contributed to the shift towards a less energy-intensive economy. 9 While the goods sector experienced a relative decline over the past 30 years, actual employment in this sector increased through 1979 to about 30 million. However, during the 1980-82 period, employment decreased by almost 3 million, primarily due to the recessions of 1980 and 1981-82. 9
The growth of producer services is closely related to the changing needs of the industries they service. It reflects a substitution effect, where work previously done within a firm is now contracted out to companies specializing in those services. 9 The growth of social services is more closely tied to changing demographics and public policy. In contrast, the growth of distributive services is linked to population increases and changes in family impacts on labor force participation patterns. 9
Decline in manufacturing and its impact on emissions.
The manufacturing sector was responsible for 12% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 [26]. 10 About 75% of these emissions came from burning fuel to create heat. At the same time, the rest were by-products of industrial processes that transform materials into products. 10 The chemical and refining industries accounted for 59% of manufacturing’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. 10
Emissions from manufacturing were 17% lower in 2021 than in 2002. 11 Between 2002 and 2019, the manufacturing sector’s output increased, but its emissions intensity (emissions per dollar of output) decreased, resulting in a 15% decrease in emissions. 11 Emissions then fell further in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic [27]. 11
However, emissions from manufacturing are projected to increase by 17% between 2024 and 2050. 10 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that growth in the output of emissions-intensive industries will increase total emissions from manufacturing. 10 This projection reflects anticipated economic growth, oil and gas supplies, and technological changes. 10
While increased adoption of electrification, carbon capture, and hydrogen fuel may reduce direct emissions from manufacturing over the long term, these technologies may also increase indirect emissions from other sectors, such as the electric power sector. 10 Additionally, emissions from manufacturing reflect supplies of oil and natural gas, as these fuels are important feedstocks for the chemical and refining industries and because their supply affects overall economic growth. 11
The Irony of Degrowth’s Environmental Claims
Free-market innovations and their role in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Free-market innovations are crucial for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and promoting environmental sustainability. As prosperity rises, so does ecological consciousness, driving the development of cleaner technologies. 8 The free market, fueled by American ingenuity, decouples economic growth from carbon emissions. From 2007 to 2019, the U.S. saw a 15% decrease in emissions even as GDP per person rose, demonstrating that economic growth and environmental sustainability coexist. 8
Problems with renewable energy technologies: larger material footprint, environmental harm, and reliance on subsidies.
While renewable energy technologies are part of the solution, they have a larger environmental footprint than fossil fuels and rely heavily on environmentally damaging mining processes. 12 The process of building solar and wind systems is resource-intensive and environmentally damaging, relying heavily on mining. 12 These technologies are expensive, intermittent, and can only sustain growth or freedom with massive subsidies. 12
Challenges with impractical decarbonization policies like green hydrogen and carbon capture.
The degrowth movement advocates for impractical and economically suicidal policies, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS). These technologies could be more efficient and costly, hindering economic growth and stripping countries of resources needed to invest in climate adaptation technologies. 12 Lower economic growth makes societies more vulnerable to pollution and poverty, undermining efforts to address environmental challenges. 12
The Danger of Lower Growth
Impact of lower growth on investment in climate adaptation technologies.
Lower growth strips countries of the ability to invest in climate adaptation technologies. 5 Diminished growth indicates that entrepreneurs and other actors won’t need more resources to build the technologies to cut the emission of harmful gasses. 5 Without future growth, debt would contract, starving risky but necessary investment projects. 13
Increased vulnerability to pollution and poverty.
Degrowth makes societies more vulnerable to pollution and poverty. 5 Of the 7.3 billion people facing unsafe air pollution levels globally, 716 million living on less than $1.90 per day are directly exposed to these hazardous conditions. 14 In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, 405 million people living in extreme poverty are exposed to unsafe PM2.5 concentrations. 14 As poverty and air pollution exposure coincide, the effects compound, increasing severe health risks and undermining livelihoods. 15
Potential for degrowth to worsen environmental deterioration by driving reliance on cheaper, more polluting technologies.
Some theorize that degrowth could worsen environmental deterioration by compelling companies to substitute expensive though cleaner production technologies for cheaper but more polluting technologies. 5 With reduced income, developed countries would have fewer resources to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies [28]. 13 Firms might simply replace expensive cleaner production techniques with cheaper, but more polluting ones [28]. 13 The upshot is that degrowth would leave the world more vulnerable to the impacts of ecological deterioration [28]. 13
Empirical Evidence Against Degrowth
Review of empirical evidence disavowing the claims of degrowth advocates.
The claims of degrowth advocates are not supported by empirical evidence. Economic growth has been instrumental in lifting societies out of widespread poverty and improving living standards. 2 3 4 Before the Industrial Revolution, incomes were primarily determined by population size, trapping societies in the Malthusian trap of abject poverty. 2
However, the Industrial Revolution enabled economies to break free from this constraint, allowing for substantial income growth and improved living standards. 2
Over the past few decades, economic growth has provided job opportunities and lifted millions out of extreme poverty, raising living standards globally. 4 While solid growth is necessary but not sufficient for economic development, the benefits of growth have been substantial, particularly for the poor, who spend a large portion of their income on basic necessities like food and clothing [23]. 4
Arguments from scientists like Mark P. Mills on renewable technologies’ inefficiency and environmental impact.
While part of the solution, renewable energy technologies have a larger environmental footprint than fossil fuels and rely heavily on environmentally damaging mining processes. 12 The process of building solar and wind systems is resource-intensive and environmentally damaging, relying heavily on mining. 12 These technologies are expensive, intermittent, and can only sustain growth or freedom with massive subsidies. 12
Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering, has argued that the environmental footprint of renewable energy technologies is often underestimated [29]. In his book “The Cloud Revolution,” Mills highlights the significant material requirements and environmental impact of these technologies, which are frequently overlooked by their proponents. 12
Recognition of the impracticality and abandonment of early degrowth schemes.
The degrowth movement advocates for impractical and economically suicidal policies, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS). These technologies could be more efficient and costly, hindering economic growth and stripping countries of resources needed to invest in climate adaptation technologies. 12 Lower economic growth makes societies more vulnerable to pollution and poverty, undermining efforts to address environmental challenges. 12
Early attempts at implementing degrowth schemes have been recognized as impractical and abandoned. For example, Nobel laureate Robert Solow criticized the “Limits to Growth” analysis, which advocated for negative economic growth, for not being based on sound and careful analysis. 16 Solow emphasized the importance of addressing environmental and resource issues through rigorous analysis and public policy rather than relying on vague assumptions or simplistic solutions. 16
The Reality of Current Economic Decline
The West has been experiencing degrowth conditions (the “great stagnation”) for decades, resulting in many social and political ills [28]. 13 This economic stagnation experiment has proven ineffective and counterproductive. Most critical proposals of the degrowth movement, such as energy sufficiency, basic income grants, and four-day workweeks, are likely to stimulate economic growth and consumption rather than curtail it. 13 Additionally, banning advertising may also lead to rebound effects, further stimulating economic growth and materialization of the economy. 13
The degrowth movement’s proposals for redistribution towards less developed countries would inadvertently stimulate economic growth and aggregate consumption growth in those nations. 13 Ironically while rejecting neoclassical economic growth theory, degrowth advocates seem to adhere to its tenet that redistribution has no effect on economic development [28]. 13
Moreover, with reduced income, developed countries would have fewer resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies. 13 Degrowth advocates may argue for reallocating expenditure from conspicuous consumption towards green investment. However, this contradicts the fact that the most innovative countries, like Sri Lanka or Cuba, do not have lower GDPs. Still, nations with the highest GDP, such as the USA and Switzerland. 13 Innovation requires significant financial resources, which would be scarce under degrowth conditions.
The predictions of economic stagnation and sluggish consumption growth in the United States have materialized. 17 However, contrary to expectations, corporate profit margins have remained robust, and companies have continued to thrive despite increased regulations. 17 While consumption growth has slowed significantly, businesses still prosper. 17
Economists have consistently underestimated inflation, consumer resilience, and labor market strength, failing to accurately predict economic trends. 18 The belief that stagnant growth and weak stock market returns would become the “new normal” has proven unfounded. 17 Rather than accepting slow growth as inevitable, charting a course for continued economic growth and prosperity is crucial.
The global economy is deteriorating due to accelerating debt that cannot be repaid. 19 In times of significant troubles, embracing degrowth and pursuing a simpler life may seem appealing. However, the path forward lies in fostering self-sufficient, resilient communities driven by local control and market forces, not in sacrificing progress and prosperity on the altar of misguided environmental ideology. 19
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The degrowth movement’s antihuman agenda severely threatens our prosperity and progress. By pushing for policies that would drag us back to a preindustrial era, degrowth advocates disregard the real-world consequences of their proposals. Economic growth has been vital to lifting billions out of poverty, driving innovation, and enabling environmental stewardship. We can’t let misguided ideologies undermine these crucial gains.
It’s time to reject the delusional activists of the degrowth movement and champion a future where economic growth and environmental sustainability go hand in hand. We must keep investing in market-driven solutions and technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels without sacrificing our quality of life [30]. Stand with us, patriots, and let’s fight for a prosperous future driven by innovation and human ingenuity. Take action now to expose the degrowth movement’s destructive agenda and defend our nation’s economic well-being.
References
[1] – https://www.plutobooks.com/blog/the-four-principles-of-degrowth/
[2] – https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
[3] – https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/economic-growth-causes-benefits-and-current-limits
[4] – https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyone-facts-factors-tools
[5] – https://mises.org/mises-wire/degrowth-movement-antihuman-and-its-advocates-are-fine
[6] – https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/macropol/eng/
[7] – https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/01/27/economic-growth-environmental-sustainability/
[8] – https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling
[9] – https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/04/art2full.pdf
[10] – https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60030
[11] – https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-02/59695-manufacturing-emissions.pdf
[12] – https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FP_20210623_industrial_gross_v2.pdf
[14] – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39797-4
[16] – https://www.cis.org.au/publication/debunking-degrowth/
[17] – https://www.morningstar.com/columns/rekenthaler-report/dangerous-myth-new-normal
[18] – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/business/economy/economy-interest-rates-inflation.html
[19] – https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-04-04/what-is-to-be-done-thoughts-on-degrowth-strategy/
[20] – Patients Give High Marks to Their Teledentistry Experience. https://www.carequest.org/resource-library/patients-give-high-marks-their-teledentistry-experience
[21] – The Standing Forest. https://www.naturabrasil.com/blogs/blog-do-brasil/The-Standing-Forest
[22] – India’s economic figures tell a complex story of UPSC. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/indias-growth-trajectory
[23] – 5 Key Reasons Why The Poor Remains Poor – Maxwell Jackky ▶ Panafricreporters. https://panafricreporters.com/5-key-reasons-why-the-poor-remains-poor-maxwell-jackky/
[24] – Macroeconomic Policy and Poverty Reduction. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/macropol/eng/
[25] – Fu, J., Wang, F., Guo, J., & Guo, J. (2024). Decoupling Economic Growth from Carbon Emissions in China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt: From the Coordinated Regional Development Perspective. Sustainability, 16(6), 2477.
[26] – Lancaster County. https://lancasterindicators.com/economy/sector-share-of-total-jobs
[27] – Are Maternity Clothes Necessary: Luxury or Basic Needs? – Mom Outfit. https://momoutfit.com/are-maternity-clothes-necessary/
[28] – Degrowth: slowing down rich economies to deal with climate change is a flawed idea – africalive.net. https://africalive.net/article/degrowth-slowing-down-rich-economies-to-deal-with-climate-change-is-a-flawed-idea/
[29] – Podcast: The Roaring 2020s with Mark P. Mills – Show-Me Institute. https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/economy/podcast-the-roaring-2020s-with-mark-p-mills/
[30] – Recycling Critical Minerals for Circular Clean Energy Solutions – Earth911. https://earth911.com/eco-tech/recycling-critical-minerals-for-circular-clean-energy-solutions/
[31] – https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-degrowth-movement-is-antihuman-its-advocates-are-fine-with-that/
[32] – https://mises.org/mises-wire/degrowth-movement-antihuman-and-its-advocates-are-fine
[33] – https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/degrowth-case-for-constructing-new-economic-paradigm/
[34] – https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wealth-Explosion-Nature-Origins-Modernity/dp/1912224593?tag=misesinsti-20
[35] – https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/dac-evaluation-resource-centre—derec.html
[36] – https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w4634/w4634.pdf
[37] – https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-022-00624-0
[38] – https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/mar/farms-found-be-biggest-particulate-pollution-source-cities
[40] – https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/degrowth-delusion/
[41] – https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/272766/1/dp16139.pdf
[43] – https://issues.org/environmental-economic-costs-minerals-solar-wind-batteries-mills/
[44] – https://heartland.org/publications/solar-power-and-the-environment/
[45] – https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/09/21/renewable-energy-has-hidden-costs
[46] – https://heartland.org/opinion/green-energy-the-greatest-wealth-transfer-to-the-rich-in-history/
[47] – https://hbr.org/2024/06/in-defense-of-degrowth
[48] – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4467952
[49] – https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/low-growth-new-normal-uk-and-other-western-economies
Critical Thinking Dispatch 
Leave a comment