Does climate stabilization mean the end of economic growth? A critical assessment of the degrowth hypothesis

Prominent degrowth scholars claim that sustained economic degrowth in wealthy nations is a viable strategy, necessary condition, and/or inevitable outcome in efforts to address climate change. These claims—referred to here as the ‘degrowth hypothesis’—rest on two core arguments. First, societies cannot decouple CO₂ emissions from GDP quickly enough without degrowth. Second, renewable energy resources cannot sustain continued growth. This paper assesses these claims through a mixed-methods approach, including critical literature review, scenario analysis, and analytical modeling. The findings challenge all three claims. On viability, the scenario analysis reveals that achieving even zero growth globally is not possible without severely limiting growth in the Global South; even then, Global North economies must contract at least 50% by 2050. In less politically infeasible scenarios—where only the Global North pursues zero or slow degrowth, still requiring the dismantling of growth-based capitalism—the global economy continues growing 2.2%—2.5% annually, yielding only marginal emissions benefits. On necessity, degrowth scholars tend to overstate required decoupling rates while understating what aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency programs can achieve. On inevitability, the claim that renewable energy cannot sustain growth relies on flawed interpretations of the energy return on investment (EROI) and is contradicted empirically.