Degrowth won’t take us anywhere but back to the past

An interesting Wired article, “Why degrowth is the worst idea on the planet”, by Andrew McAfee, director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, argues against the so-called “degrowth theories” defended by academics like Jason Hickel, who say the only way to save the planet is to abandon economic growth, reduce production and consumption and, basically, go back in time. Hickel’s recently published book, “Less is more: how degrowth will save the world”, is considered by many to be a Bible on the subject, and is prefaced by two members of the Extinction Rebellion movement.

But as much intuitive as the theory may seem, there’s a fundamental flaw in the degrowth argument: from a strictly economic point of view, the evidence shows that the countries best dealing with the climate emergency are not those that have reduced or halted growth, but those that use technology and innovation to achieve higher levels of efficiency and manage to produce more with less, or do so with minimal environmental impact. The evolution of many industries shows that in many industries, efficiency has improved enough in recent decades to achieve greater production with fewer inputs and less environmental impact, whether we are talking about energy generation or agriculture. The reality is that what is needed is not to go back, but precisely the opposite, to develop more…