Opinion: We need to move beyond infinite economic growth.
———-
One of the many diverse branches of the climate movement is the emergence of the degrowth economic ideology.
Proponents of degrowth say that fully transitioning off of fossil fuels will not be enough to solve climate change; it’s the multiple ecological crises facing the planet that must be solved as well, like pollution and deforestation.
The main culprit? Economic growth, which is the main driver of climate change and overconsumption, and runs on fossil fuel energy systems.
Initially devised by ecological economists, degrowth has been gaining popularity as “green growth” has failed so far to prevent catastrophic warming (of course, these two approaches to fighting climate change are not mutually exclusive). Green growth is an attempt to mitigate global warming by substituting fossil fuels with cleaner energy, while still relying on the same capitalistic systems that are causing climate change.
After all, the main goal of capitalism is unrestricted, infinite growth. Of course, infinite growth does not necessarily bode well on a finite planet. In fact, right now, the weight of all human society outweighs that of the natural world.
We’ve reached the point where growth is being driven for the sake of growth. Physical growth is tied to economic growth. After all, do we really need all these big-box stores and power strip malls everywhere? They’re just here to increase GDP growth. Thanks, Ronald Reagan.
But, under degrowth, how would we measure our society’s success? Growth, measured by GDP, is the main metric by which we currently do so. Well, degrowth proponents say that a metric such as a Happiness Index, or a Human Development Index, would not only help to eliminate growth as a societal goal but promote values that would result in citizens having better lives.
A shift in focus away from economic growth and toward human well-being could also shift cities’ focus internally towards intensive development. In other words, jobs such as artistic architectural renovation and environmental stewardship could become the new norm.
Degrowth originated in the 1970s; degrowth conferences began to be held every two years, starting in Paris in 2008. The second conference, held in Barcelona in 2010, was the first to articulate concrete policy ideas. Since then, degrowth has gained support from climate scientists and intergovernmental panels. Concrete political action to achieve degrowth is only now just getting started; the Democratic Socialists of America recently started a “Degrowth Ecosocialist” caucus, though it is important to note that degrowth is not necessarily socialism.
So, what are some policies that a country such as the United States could do to transition towards degrowth?
The first policy necessary to accomplish degrowth is a much stronger federal government — like the one we had before Reaganomics began its 40-year government-gutting spree. The government will need to play a massive role in reshaping society. So, to accomplish this, the wealthy will need to be taxed a lot more, which would also reduce income inequality, killing two birds with one stone.
Another policy that degrowth proponents believe would be helpful is a universal basic income. The Andrew Yang campaign in 2020 proposed one. Even though Yang lost the primary, the United States ended up experimenting with a form of the concept via their distribution of stimulus checks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID itself, in fact, could be a model for degrowth. As private businesses shut down and the economy shrank to only necessary sectors, American citizens were propped up by a universal basic income.
Finally, more labor policies must be enacted, including a four-day work week. Unions must grow and private businesses must be democratized.
Obviously, like any attempt to reform the nation, it would be challenging. But instead of federally, can degrowth be enacted in a single state like Oregon? What would it take? Is it even possible?
Well, Oregon has already enacted some anti-growth policies. One of Oregon’s many unique features is its Urban Growth Boundary. Enacted in 1980, this policy limits suburban sprawl and preserves large swaths of Oregonian wilderness for forests, agriculture and recreation.
Another policy that could be enacted would be a series of internal reforms in the Oregon state legislature and treasury to move the “goal” from GDP growth towards something like HDI, changing the objective of the economy away from growth and towards taking care of its people. Once the end goal of the state is changed, the methods to attain that end goal could change, too.
Entire countries have already done this, too — Bhutan has adopted “gross national happiness” instead of GDP as its primary development indicator, and various countries have formed a “Wellbeing Economy Governments” alliance.
Finally, Oregon could also enact some sort of universal basic income. Alaska has already done this thanks to its oil money. In 2022, Alaska’s universal basic income program paid out about $3,284 per person.
If we can move away from economic growth, we may have a chance at stopping global warming before it’s too late. And Oregon may be the place to start the trend.