How can humanity balance economic expansion with conservation and sustainable resource management? Can “green growth” address environmental degradation and climate change, or do we need remodelled economic systems and more radical ideas of “degrowth”? And to what extent does green growth reproduce structural inequalities within and between countries? ODID’s recent roundtable discussion tackled these key questions, as part of our ongoing journey to shape an impactful response to climate change, as a teaching and research community. 

The discussion illustrated the complexity and nuance of the evolving climate challenge, with issues of equality, responsibility and appropriate solutions recurring throughout, and exploration of the pitfalls of current thinking about growth and industrialisation. While the idea of green growth may initially sound promising, with its assumption that we can increase GDP while reducing carbon emissions and protecting biodiversity, achieving this takes time – which participants agreed humanity doesn’t have. So do we need degrowth instead, shrinking rather than growing economies, to use fewer of the world’s resources and prioritise wellbeing before profit? For proponents of degrowth, planetary boundaries and unsustainable levels of consumption in the Global North make absolute decoupling of emission and production impossible milestones to achieve in the long run.

The discussion explored multiple perspectives within each approach, and the tensions and commonality between them. Is either feasible and effective – and is the dichotomy between green growth and degrowth a false one?

Social and environmental justice interlinked

Questions of inequality quickly arose. Is the degrowth agenda suitable in the context of development, when many countries need to increase consumption to provide citizens with a decent standard of living? There's clearly a difference between the material waste caused by overconsumption in rich industrialised nations and the increased consumption needed in under-developed countries to eradicate hunger and poverty. For these countries, degrowth isn’t an option, and current industrial policies in relation to climate are deeply disappointing, preventing them from fully using their natural resources or industrialising. 

In parts of the world where historical injustices have caused extreme inequity, people and politicians understandably want to increase living standards, only to be told by the global community that they can only grow if they use climate-friendly technology (which the West produces). So is climate action incompatible with social justice? Or – as one participant claimed – is climate despair a luxury, unless we sort inequality first? Does successfully addressing the climate crisis rest on first addressing inequality? As suggested by others, a major weakness in the pro-green growth argument is a lack of attention to unequal international trade relations between the countries of the Global North and the Global South. 

Global North vs Global South – a myth? 

The debate clearly articulated the need to understand different perspectives at all levels, from global to community. The differences between the Global North and South can seem binary, but there are pockets of deprivation and abundance within each, meaning we must examine the politics of trade and pay attention to distribution within countries – even those like the United States, where high levels of deprivation exist. Areas such as Appalachia are suffering from under-development and lack of structural transformation after the demise of industries such as coal, creating an opioid crisis directly linked to unemployment. Environmental and social justice must be paired, with solidarity for all regions suffering deprivation. 

It’s easy to blame climate injustice on populist voters in the Global North, but many live in poverty and distrust climate messages as manufactured by big business. Top-down climate solutions can be part of the problem, generating pushback and populism. Some people equate green technology with industries such as big pharma, and assume it is profit-driven and won’t benefit them. The cry “No net zero till no poverty” can apply in parts of the Global North as well as the South. In both, local agency must be a key factor in environmental solutions, rather than just state-centred perspectives. Local communities in poor countries can be displaced and suffer environmental injustice as a result of national-level growth. 

China’s progress in slashing poverty through double-digit growth rates is also key, revealing so many of the contradictions around climate and equality, and the excitement of new technological solutions. The energy transition is not automatically good for equitable growth. Does the green agenda reproduce inequality – for example, through the low-paid Chinese labour producing glass for solar panels? We need to understand China’s politics and economy, both because of its role in the climate debate and its influence in the Global South 

What is politically acceptable growth?

We also need to understand the role of actors such as energy companies. Businesses and market mechanisms are currently central to climate solutions, with new technology crucial in how we address climate change. Green growth is traditionally understood as delivered through capitalism, with close links to the state. We need to understand who is funding studies and shaping decisions, to prevent greenwashing in the green growth agenda, with climate-focused initiatives such as the US Inflation Reduction Act containing a strong protectionist element. 

But is degrowth a politically feasible alternative? Can politicians in Western democracies realistically campaign with manifestos to reduce people’s consumption? And what would degrowth mean for the export-led economies of the Global South? Given that current consumption levels are not tenable even in the medium term, are there policy positions that are easier to swallow than degrowth – for example, that people work fewer hours? Technocratic power and the role of “climate experts” in democracies is also a key issue, especially in relation to demotic understanding of climate change. 

Defining new growth models?

In these contexts, green growth vs. degrowth may not be a helpful dichotomy. Instead, degrowth could be helpful in select areas – for example, banning certain plastics, single-glazed windows or space travel. This wouldn’t be enough to tackle climate change, but could be part of the solution – or perhaps we need to move completely beyond capitalism? The climate agenda is dominated by state-centred approaches, and states are dominated by large corporate interests. Average growth rates are also extremely volatile, with shocks on the increase, due to worsening impacts of climate change. 

We also have to examine the way we use materials, given finite resources, and how those resources are distributed – including human resources. Skills transfers are vital, so that people most affected by climate change can be part of the solution, even at community level. By moving beyond the state-business axis, and creating space for smaller, greener drivers of growth, we can place local agency at the heart of climate responses, increasing impact and addressing inequality.

Countries such as Fiji and Vanuatu, where climate adaptation measures are already urgently needed, show that support for extreme climate mitigation action is politically possible. These countries spend significant proportions of GDP recovering from disasters each year, but have yet to receive anything from the Loss and Damage Fund, established at COP27 to assist nations most impacted by climate change. Climate finance has potential to greatly reduce the contradiction between economic growth and a lower carbon footprint – but more needs to reach communities, both in carbon-emitting countries and developing countries, so they can prepare for different global-heating scenarios – for example, from 1.5°C to 5°C. 

A planetary approach

Agency is hugely important for and within developing countries if we’re to address climate change. Developing countries need more input into the structure of international institutions, to ensure growth goes hand in hand with redistribution – essential when over half the world’s population accounts for less than 10 per cent of planetary emissions.

The need for speed and the need for globally united endeavour stood out in the discussion. Debating green growth versus degrowth isn’t enough, argued some. We need to think about how to accelerate climate responses and escape the capitalist-led status quo in climate solutions. No more “business as usual”, because we don’t have time. Nature will “degrow” us all if we don’t act effectively on climate change now. 

This requires urgent global coordination and a collective human identity. Dialogue is vital. We need to think about how we talk to each other – listening rather than lecturing, and uniting the social justice and environmental justice movements, to drive the real change needed to protect our climate. 

To help collectively shape ODID’s position on climate change and development as part of a community of critical debate, open-hearted discussion and knowledge coordination, follow the ODID Climate Change series of lectures and events. 

The next lecture, Rethinking Climate Change and Migration: From Victims to Agents of Change, takes place on 23 February. Find out more.