Challenge to Growth FAQs
We have spent the past two years presenting Challenge to Growth content to audiences across the United States - in classrooms, virtual seminars, public events, and private conversations. In this list of FAQs, we respond to common questions and sentiments received as a result of our work.
General Degrowth Questions
-
For a sustainability-minded audience, the term “degrowth” immediately connects global ecological issues, such as climate change, to economic growth - it’s in the name! This is a crucial link that is often missing from conversations about clean technology, environmental policy, and other potential approaches to creating a more sustainable economy. The opening message of our Challenge to Growth series is that the global economy has outgrown the planet; we must name endless economic growth as a primary factor in the planetary health equation.
“Degrowth” helps us do that in just a few syllables, but also communicates a sense of de-emphasizing economic growth as a social and political goal. The action of de-growing is not mere shrinking of the whole, it’s a transformation of economic incentives away from endless macro-economic growth.
And yes, we do need messaging capable of exciting a movement. It is precisely degrowth’s seriousness that is catalyzing widespread attention and interest in the topic. In the words of DeScholar (’25) Anna Simonton, the term is bold enough to “truly meet the moment.” It is less susceptible to vague adaptation for almost any purpose, a pitfall of buzzwords like green, clean, and circular. As sustainability advocates become disillusioned at the lack of planetary-scale progress, linking up with degrowth can provide an injection of new energy along with a robust theory of change.
-
The tie between economic activity and ecological impact (represented by the phrase “the economy is ecology”) shows why the pursuit of endless economic growth is a shared problem for all of humanity. Ecological impact is necessarily linked with socioeconomic status and living conditions for humans worldwide.
Far from being a purely environmental critique, degrowth is an intersectional lens that shows how social injustice, environmental impact and wealth inequality are all produced by an economy that drives for endless growth. Degrowth centers the challenge of restructuring wealth and power as core necessities for curbing economic activities that destroy ecosystem health.
-
We make this recommendation because it has become so clear that improving the efficiency of a company or organization – in material, waste, or financial terms – does not actually advance the broader economic system toward sustainability. At least, not so long as that system operates by concentrating wealth among a small section of society paired with the expectation of endless growth (see C2G#3). Instead, we recommend replacing the typical efficiency-based green approach with action toward a more equitable control of resources. Doing so is inevitably tougher. There is no equity-machine that can be purchased and installed, like new lightbulbs or more efficient engines. Here are a few initial approaches you can take:
Formulas –If you are developing or advocating for a sustainability solution, what formula are you using to estimate impact? In Transition to a Smaller Global Economy we detail an updated formula for estimating true sustainability impact; one based on multiple ecological indicators, evaluated in a macroeconomic context, and which accounts for extreme wealth inequality.
Metrics – If you are already in the habit of tracking metrics like carbon emissions, energy demand, or waste generation as part of your eco-dashboard, add social metrics to the list. Organizations like B Lab and the Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) already provide excellent guidance on tracking metrics linked to social equity and wellbeing.
Models – Check out the growing array of resources for updating your business model in line with post-growth principles. One of our partners, PivotAll, is a business incubator that publishes post-growth case studies. The Post Growth Institute has resources surrounding living Post Growth. The New Economy Coalition also has resources for learning about and building regional solidarity economies.
Movements – For further guidance on supporting more equitable ways of structuring your business or organization, look to movements already focused on social and economic justice. Some examples of allied movements, represented in our DeSchool programming include: the solidarity economy, (eco)-feminist and labor movements, modern day abolition, and rights of nature.
-
In reimagining our economic and societal systems, it is evident there is no one clear path or place to start. However, we can break the complex problem of systemic change down into simpler components. Let’s analyze the definition of degrowth: “a just transition to a smaller global economy.” Just conveys that the transition must be socially and economically just in its impacts and implementation, requiring a reconfiguration of wealth and power. Transition highlights a transformation of the economy, shifting the means, institutions, systems and structures we use to meet our needs. Smaller explicitly states the reduction in overall economic activity, requiring limits on extraction and throughput. Global provides the scale needed for an impactful solution, ensuring all economies operate within planetary boundaries, and reminds us to look for externalized costs and impacts created by proposed solutions. Each aspect of the degrowth definition can help to define degrowth action.
Each component also points to substantial work already being done to transform society. The uniqueness of the degrowth critique is not that it proposes something radically new or never-been-tried, but that it weaves together different paradigms for economic and social change. For more on breaking down the definition of degrowth to drive action, check out the pamphlet Shrink Responsiblyby DGI’s Anna Prouty.
We also believe that just starting a conversation or hosting a dialogue about the problem of endless growth counts as action. Donella Meadows, a co-author of The Limits to Growth (1972), wrote extensively about finding strategic places to intervene in a system. In understanding that a global paradigm shift is necessary for degrowth, simply calling attention to the problem and having difficult conversations is a directly effective intervention. Our own toolkit also has resources for action-building and creating community events.
Finally, it is not true that resistance to endless growth has never been done before, even in a U.S. context. As DGI’s Jason Barahona Rosales presented at DeSchool 2026, movements like the abolitionist challenge to slavery, the indigenous challenge to settler colonialism, and the feminist challenge to commodification all share the action of challenging normalized paradigms tied to endless economic growth.
-
The Challenge to Growth series takes an ecological economics approach to describing the problem of endless economic growth. We emphasize that every bit of economic output is tied to some ecological input, and any economic system dedicated to continual growth of output is destined to fail at creating fair and lasting wellbeing.
We focus primarily on this ecological context so that the challenge to endless economic growth can be taken up by a variety of existing sustainability efforts, from climate action to environmental justice advocacy. What does it mean to pursue these aims without macroeconomic growth? In order to get more people engaged in this question, we focus on detailing the ways that endless growth counteracts so many of our well-meaning efforts at sustainability.
To be sure, the concentration of wealth and economic control in the hands of a few, typically associated with capitalism, is a core problem that degrowth must address. Once you’re convinced that the economy has outgrown the planet, the prospect of intentionally limiting growth becomes a primarily social question. How can global economic downscaling be enacted with protection and empowerment for those most vulnerable to the negative effects of economic contraction? The DGI discussion toolkit points to some great resources that describe levers for economic systems change, many of which focus on the task of moving beyond capitalism as a path to degrowth.
And yet, we observe that there is no prominent or widely shared economic doctrine, or “-ism”, that fundamentally challenges endless economic growth at a global scale. By bringing together wisdom from a great variety of social and political traditions, we aim to confront a problem that is unprecedented in human history: limiting global economic size for the purpose of sustainability.
GDP and Metrics
-
Global GDP represents the total financial value of goods and services produced by and for humans. Since the value of a final good or service has some relationship to the underlying resource inputs, there is an inherent link between economic size and ecological impact. Thus, Global GDP is a useful and direct indicator of impact, especially since it is a widely tracked, analyzed, and discussed metric. Rather than de-emphasize the metric, we simply call for the elimination of this metric’s maximization as the broader global goal. A limit on ecological degradation would then reflect a limit on global GDP.
-
The global climate is only one of many ecological systems impacted by economic activity, but building an economy that stays within planetary boundaries requires considering all aspects of ecological health, such as biodiversity and land use. As described in C2G#3, planetary sustainability will require us to consider a wide range of ecological impacts, each evaluated at a global scale. With this scope and scale in view, absolute decoupling of economic growth and ecological impact is impossible.
*US CO2 trend, 2005-2023, based on EPA data.
Economics and Finance
-
We’re saying that conventional sustainability projects could be worth it, if paired with a limit on overall economic expansion. Such a restriction would ensure that resource savings could not be re-deployed for continual economic growth, furthering planetary impacts. We can use the squeezed balloon analogy from C2G#2: If getting more efficient is like squeezing the balloon, reducing economic size is like letting some air out. The balloon is kept from bulging back out from another angle. Realizing that no local green initiative can handle what happens to the global savings, you can still pair your initiative with actions recommended in the final What You Can Do section of C2G#2.
-
Yes. In fact, degrowth could be a growth opportunity for businesses aligned with slower, and lower-impact forms of production and consumption. Businesses that fill service gaps, reinvest in and benefit their local community, and provide valuable opportunities and services without seeking endless growth, are a key piece of a degrowth future. A just restructuring of the economy, accompanied with global downscaling, can and should benefit currently under-resourced communities. This could lead to new businesses or endeavors being created to support the community and local economy.
For more information on how businesses can embrace a degrowth transition, and case studies of businesses that are taking the steps, we encourage you to check out the work of PivotAll, a degrowth-oriented business incubator based in the U.S.
On the Global Scale
-
As of now, there are no countries that have degrowth implemented explicitly within their development plan. Instead of looking for direct mentions of degrowth, we can also analyze frameworks that focus on wellbeing and systems change. There is increasing popularity in alternative indicators for social wellbeing (Gross National Happiness, Quality of Life Framework(s), Measuring What Matters Framework, Sustainable Society Index, etc). Additionally, local and national governments have begun to implement Rights of Nature into their frameworks.
Even if a single nation were to intentionally downscale its economy, the ecological effects would need to be resolved globally. A single instance of economic downscaling does not constitute degrowth, but could prefigure the kind of systems and practices needed at a global scale. (See the above question Are you saying sustainability and efficiency projects aren’t worth it? for more detail.)
-
No, the connection between worsening planetary health and growing economic size is not resolved by a decline in the human population.
A rising human population is correlated with rising environmental impacts, but it is not the best metric for predicting them. A far better predictor is the total size of the economy (measured as GDP). The strong correlation between economy and ecology is a well-established relationship, meaning that controlling economic size is a more direct strategy for limiting global impacts like climate change and biodiversity loss.
Research on global policy for reducing ecological damage has shown that focusing solely on population, affluence, or technology (individual factors that influence the whole) is ineffective. It would be better to directly regulate impacts at a global scale. We have done this before, in efforts to address climate change and protect the ozone layer [9]. However, because of the inextricable linkage of economic activity and ecological resources, any set of treaties covering all possible impacts would inevitably restrict total economic size.
Together, these findings mean that a focus on population size is misplaced when aiming for environmental sustainability. We’ll first need to build resolve for fairly limiting economic activity. To manage the effects of such a bold move, more people will need the power to make production, consumption, and reproductive decisions that fit within a smaller economy. That’s why DGI aims to build a broad understanding of the detrimental effects of endless economic growth, spurring a collective commitment to degrowth.
-
Degrowth entails a downsizing of the global economy in its entirety, but that does not mean that every country or economy needs to downsize. Wealthy economies and individuals who have already overshot ecological limits will need a path to reducing both their ecological and economic demands, but that is only a part of the process of degrowth. Achieving a fair balance of ecological resource allocation will require growth in many contexts and downscaling in others.
What If?
-
Using regulation or taxation of pollution levels, production methods, etc, which penalizes environmental harm, is a conventional approach to managing the economy within environmental boundaries. This has provided major benefits for human health in certain settings where such regulations are enforced. An example of this is the US Clean Air Act. That being said, another response to these regulations is to move the point of production outside regulatory boundaries. A recent systematic study of multinational firms’ production practices put it this way: “firms headquartered in countries with strict environmental policies perform their polluting activities abroad in countries with relatively weaker policies.”
All of this maneuvering is in pursuit of continued economic growth and it leads to what we call the “squeezed balloon effect” (see C2G#2, Figure 6), whereby restrictions on one area of ecological impact force extractive activity not to cease but to move elsewhere – like squeezing a balloon so that its unrestricted surfaces bulge outward.
Now, imagine that environmental regulations and taxations were to cover all nine planetary boundaries and be enforced across the world, avoiding maneuvering around these regulations. There would be nowhere to seek additional opportunities for growth, no open space for the economy to bulge outward. We cannot grow benignly, we’ll need to cultivate long-term and widespread support for a limit on economic size.
-
Our answer is the same for any question about a potential clean, green, or renewable energy source. First, what is done with that energy? Usable energy is only one input to economic activity. We use it to extract and shape materials, move people and products, and to compute and display information that keeps the whole thing going. All of these economic activities make their own claim on ecological resources. So, even if some magical impact-free energy source were available (fusion or otherwise), we would still need to regulate our use of that energy via a limit on economic size.
Perhaps you are asking simply about climate change. What if nuclear fusion could provide a benign substitute for greenhouse gas-emitting energy resources like fossil fuels? Then you have to ask, What happens to the savings? (C2G#2). If all of the current uses of fossil fuels were replaced by fusion energy, there is no system – regulatory or otherwise – for keeping those “saved” materials from being used to supply additional economic growth. With governments, corporations, and individuals hungry for growth, there will be ample opportunities to use up the savings, supplying pent up demand for AI computation, world travel, and cheap materials. Only a deliberate and well-trained commitment to limiting economic size can resist the temptation to trade short-term increases in production and consumption for long-term climate damage.
Futhermore, there’s no guarantee that new and improved energy resources will be fairly allocated across global society. Natural gas and electric stoves have been supplying some humans with clean home cooking for over a hundred years, and yet 2.1 billion people still cook with open flame fires and stoves that are harmful to their health. New technology does not beget fairness or ecological responsibility, but new economic paradigms, such as degrowth, could enable them to be deployed effectively.