Current wealth inequality levels are high. The poorest part of the world only owns 0.75% of the world’s total wealth. The consequences of this trend–increased political polarization, distrust in public institutions, and populist nationalism–foster instability. By prioritizing economic growth, these inequities deplete the planet’s natural resources, disproportionately affecting communities in the Global South. When economic growth comes at the cost of wealth equality and income-security, communities have less capacity to factor in environmental concerns.
Traditional practices to reduce inequality only emphasize redistribution (i.e. taxes or transfers), while climate change solutions advocate for plastic recycling and neglecting the systemic factors (i.e. lack of sustainability laws) that lead to mass pollution. Progressive solutions, like those in Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, advocate for global wealth tax on certain income brackets. However, most economists acknowledge the infeasibility of such a policy.
These solutions do not truly promote wider access to new opportunities, nor tackle environmental issues at their heart. Fundamentally, the ways nations have pursued climate policies are undergirded by the sole purpose of profit. For instance, many companies have labeled their products as recyclable when, in reality, less than 10% of plastic is recycled. It seems clear that for us to address these crises, we must rethink our entire economic system.
This is where the concept of degrowth comes in–our society should phase out the emphasis on GDP growth and prioritize social equality, environmental sustainability, and good relations between human beings. Though this may seem counterintuitive, degrowth is not the elimination of capital. It seeks to scale down ecologically damaging and socially unimportant sectors such as private transportation, advertising, and beef, while promoting necessary sectors like education and healthcare.
The Degrowth movement has already started on a grassroots level. Consumer demand has become increasingly eco-conscious. Today, more than 80% of consumers want companies with a socially-driven mission. In the apparel industry, brands like H&M and Zara have faced growing criticism from consumers rejecting their greenwashing tactics. On the other hand, the apparel company Patagonia is explicitly anti-growth. They raised $10 million for environmental nonprofits while also providing free repairs for both their own products and those from other manufacturers. Both Nike and H&M have thus followed suit, launching in-store repair facilities. Tesla, on the other hand, released all its patents in 2014 in order to stimulate the use of electric vehicles. Rather than endangering these companies, Patagonia and Tesla are undoubtedly widely successful.
Degrowth also promotes reduced consumption. A de-emphasis on GDP can be paired with a carbon tax on all imported goods and luxurious services. Such policies already exist: recently, the EU imposed a carbon border tax on industrial products like sand and steel. Since climate change disproportionately impacts the countries least responsible for it, degrowth–in minimizing consumption–also minimizes the marginalization of lower-income nations.
By empowering workers and promoting equal wealth distribution, degrowth supports marginalized communities — particularly those in the Global South. These nations face the worst impacts of economic inequality and climate change, making it crucial to create an economy that shifts away from exploitative labor practices. A degrowth scenario would alleviate Southern economies to pursue a more human-centered economic policy focused on the wealth accumulation of all.
Our current economic system is no longer pragmatic when our society seeks solutions for a more sustainable and livable future. Degrowth is the only solution left in our pockets if we want the next generation to enjoy the most basic right: the right to exist.
