Economic growth continues to fuel planetary heating, raising urgent questions about whether prosperity and environmental protection can ever be reconciled. Rising GDP persistently correlates with increased carbon emissions and broader ecological damage, challenging the notion of sustainable development. During the Cop30 negotiations in Brazil last year, delegates reiterated a longstanding argument: for nations pursuing economic advancement, higher emissions are often seen as an unavoidable byproduct.
The Historical Context and Growing Concerns
Since the inaugural Cop meetings in the 1990s, developing countries have been granted more lenient reduction targets to account for the economic disparity with wealthier nations, which historically emitted vast quantities of CO2 during their industrial ascents. This concession stems from the belief that environmental harm is an inevitable cost of achieving prosperity. Recent data underscores this trend, with global GDP per capita reaching a record high in 2024, mirrored by a surge in annual carbon emissions. As climate targets become increasingly elusive and warnings escalate about potential tipping points being crossed, blind faith in growth for its own sake is beginning to waver.
This week, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged economies to "move beyond GDP" as a primary measure of progress, cautioning that current "existing accounting systems" are steering the planet toward catastrophe. His comments resonate with a burgeoning school of economic thought, broadly termed "post-growth," which dares to pose a once-unthinkable question: must solving the climate crisis entail learning to thrive without perpetual expansion?
Post-Growth Economics: A Radical Rethink
Post-growth economists frequently reject GDP in favour of innovative frameworks that incorporate environmental impacts, such as the "doughnut economics" model recently embraced by Amsterdam or New Zealand's pioneering "wellbeing budget." While the field experiences internal debates, particularly regarding the extent to which nations should actively pursue de-growth strategies to shrink their economies, proponents unanimously agree that with the planet pushed to its limits, a fundamental reassessment is imperative.
Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Surrey and a prominent post-growth economist, remarked, "Economic growth holds a near-mythical status in the affections of economists and politicians. But wishful thinking will not resolve the climate crisis. Post-growth economics provides greater choice, enhanced realism, and deeper insight into the possibilities for human prosperity. It is not about reverting to primitive living but about liberating ourselves from intellectual constraints."
The Origins and Evolution of Post-Growth Thought
The roots of post-growth economics can be traced to the influential 1970s publication Limits to Growth, which sparked controversy by questioning humanity's capacity for endless expansion. Critics argue that the book underestimated our ability to adapt technologically in the face of environmental challenges. This technological optimism underpins the concept of "green growth," which posits that the global economy can continue expanding while averting disaster. Advocates highlight the rapid adoption of renewable energy in some countries, where growth appears to have been decoupled from emissions.
Nations like the UK, France, Germany, and the US have increased their GDP per capita since the 2000s while reducing carbon emissions. However, experts vigorously dispute the evidence for decoupling. Peter Victor, an Emeritus Professor at the University of York, explained, "The evidence remains inconclusive because it focuses on the wrong metric: annual flows of emissions rather than their cumulative accumulation. It is the accumulated stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that drives climate change, not the annual flows. We are far from decoupling this stock from economic growth."
Global Perspectives and Planetary Boundaries
Further complicating the picture, while some countries may have decoupled growth from domestic emissions, the overall scenario becomes murkier when accounting for imported goods. Meanwhile, major economies such as India and China have yet to significantly separate annual emissions from their growth trajectories. Broadly, since Limits to Growth was published, our comprehension of how economic activity harms the planet has expanded beyond carbon emissions alone. Post-growth economics has emerged alongside the study of "planetary boundaries"—rigid environmental limits that, if exceeded, could trigger catastrophic outcomes.
This research identifies nine critical ecological processes, ranging from climate change to ocean acidification and ozone depletion, defining safe operational zones for each. The most recent planetary health assessment, released in September, revealed that seven of these nine boundaries are being breached dangerously. Scientists warn that this widespread transgression threatens global stability.
Key Findings from the 2025 Planetary Health Check
- Atmospheric CO2 levels: At a 15 million-year high
- Ecological diversity: Experiencing major decline
- Land area covered by forests: Fallen below safe levels
- Freshwater flows: Unstable, increasing drought and flood risks
- Global nutrient cycles: Disrupted, leading to 'dead zones'
- Chemicals and plastics: Excessive release without adequate testing
- Ocean acidification: Placing marine organisms at risk
- Aerosols in the atmosphere: Currently within safe limits
- Ozone in the stratosphere: Safe but recovery remains incomplete
When juxtaposed with living standards, the study of planetary boundaries uncovers a stark trade-off. In 2018, researchers at the University of Leeds applied these boundaries to over 150 countries, analysing metrics like CO2 emissions, ecological footprints, and land use. They assessed how many boundaries each nation had breached and compared this with progress on social indicators such as income, nutrition, and life satisfaction. Their pivotal finding: no country has successfully met the basic needs of its citizens while remaining within its biophysical limits. The higher a nation's standard of living, the more environmental ceilings are violated—the exact opposite of what sustainable growth should entail.
Contemporary Schools of Thought in Ecological Economics
Efforts to break this relationship are now the focus of ecological economists, who generally align with three contemporary positions. Green Keynesians believe green growth is achievable through state-led transitions, advocating policies like the green new deal to drive public investment, infrastructure, and job creation. Green capitalists, conversely, place faith in market reforms and technological innovation to deliver sustainable growth, supporting measures such as carbon pricing and deregulation of green industries. Both groups share common ground, including backing for renewables and public-private partnerships.
In contrast, the post-growth camp argues on a more fundamental level, asserting that continued growth is incompatible with planetary boundaries. Professor Victor noted, "Post-growth encompasses diverse approaches, varying in scope and emphasis. Yet, they share a core understanding that the physical scale of the economy must be reduced to prevent further degradation of life-supporting planetary systems." The de-growth movement, a prominent manifestation of this view, calls for radical reductions in production and consumption, proposing measures like a four-day workweek and income caps to curb excessive purchasing power.
The Path Forward: Uncertainty and Global Commitments
Amidst these debates, the global destination has been set: under the Paris Agreement, carbon emissions must fall by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°C. What remains uncertain is the pathway to these goals and whether economic growth can be sustained alongside them. With current global GDP standing at approximately $111.1 trillion, this represents one of the most pressing questions of our time.
Data sources: The introductory chart utilises CO2 emissions data from the Global Carbon Budget project and GDP per capita figures from the World Bank. The Limits to Growth chart was generated using PyWorld3, a Python implementation of the World3 model from Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (1974), which differs slightly from the original 1972 model due to varied parameters and structure.
