A common refrain from those who advocate under the banner of Degrowth, admittedly a somewhat diverse bunch, is that their opponents mischaracterize degrowth arguments by equating Degrowth with austerity. ‘Shutter the thought’ say the degrowthers, ‘less really is more’ as the title of one predominant degrowth advocate’s book clearly states. Yet it is also notable that degrowth visions tend to be a bit short on details or even an overall definition of what a society it envisions. 

       Still a vague snapshot or two emerges in the literature, some of which doesn’t even use the words ‘degrowth.’ In an article titled In Defense of Degrowth, prominent degrowth advocate Goirgos Kallis describes “a change of direction, at the macro-level of economic and political institutions and at a microlevel of personal values and aspirations. Income and material comfort is to be reduced for many along the way, but the goal is that this is not experienced as welfare loss.” In a new book The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism, degrowth is defined as ‘a proposal for the radical reorganization of society that leads to a drastic reduction in the use of energy and resources that is deemed necessary, desirable, and possible.’ 

      Naomi Klein writes in her book On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal of an “ecological crisis that has its roots in overconsumption” and the necessity of “reducing the amount of material stuff that the wealthiest 20 percent of people on the planet consume.” Such a percentage sounds like it can encompass a sort of global elite, but it is also the equivalent of the populations of Europe, the U.S., Australia, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina. 

       Jason Hickel, the author of Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, likes to harken back to the 1970s in terms of GDP and energy usage. Hickel argues regarding global warming ‘it’s not possible to stay under 1.5 or 2 degrees if high-income nations continue to use so much energy…high-income nations need to reduce energy demand significantly.’ As for the 1970s, Hickel wrote on his blog a few years ago: ‘Folks who lived through the 1970s remember them as heady days. And the poverty rate was lower back then and happiness levels were higher than now. Real wages were higher, too. The difference is people consumed less unnecessary stuff.’

      Depending on one’s perspective, or better still one’s class, the 1970s may be a strange time to romanticize in the US. The urban crisis was worsening, the result of capital flight, austerity, and racism. Neoliberalism was rapidly being asserted as an economic cure-all. Smog and water pollution were bigger problems than they are now. The trucking and meat industries were being deregulated with wages crashing. As for the real wages Hickel refers to, for the working class they have hardly budged in the decades since. Perhaps it would be a comfort for American workers that their lack of wage growth coincides with the degrowth agenda. 

      Some suggestions in degrowth literature for pulling this are fine: legislating extended warranties on products ensuring that they last longer, a “right to repair”, breaking corporate monopolies on products to enable repairs to be affordable, and worker cooperatives. Yet even these reforms would hardly be enough for the 70 percent reduction in resource use that Hickel claims is necessary. So what else? There is taxing red meat (meat-eating is generally looked down upon to some degree by all degrowth advocates), limiting single-use plastic, scaling down the airline industry (including eliminating frequent flier miles), and banning food from landfills. It would be a society of endless rules and regulation. And for degrowth proponents transitioning off fossil fuels isn’t enough, not to mention difficult given degrowth hostility to mining, energy usage would need to decline for its own sake. The direct connection to increased energy usage and poverty reduction has been clear for a century. The implications of a very large drop in energy usage would seem to be obvious.  

       Thus for a more complete degrowth vision one can turn to Tony Vettese and Drew Pendergrass’ book Half-Earth Socialism: A Plan to Save the Future from Extinction, Climate Change, and Pandemics. Under this plan quotas would limit energy usage to about 2000 watts per person, roughly one-third of the current average level of Western Europe usage, and one-sixth of American usage. Vettese and Pendergrass actually point to a recent economic system they argue serves as a model for what they have in mind: Cuba’s Periodo Especial. 

      As the Soviet Union collapsed it ceased to subsidize petroleum imports for its allies forcing Cuba to essentially decarbonize. Vettese and Pendergrass laud the transition to organic urban gardens and significantly reduced meat consumption (food production declined by 40 percent overall) along with the purchase of a million bicycles from China to replace idled cars and buses as health improvements (China meanwhile was on its way to being the largest car market in the world). Buried in one footnote the authors point out that in 1992 alone 30,000 people lost their eyesight due to optic neuropathy brought about by nutritional deficiencies. It is unlikely Cubans who lived through the period look back at the extensive blackouts and weight loss with much fondness. Vettese and Pendergrass acknowledge such solutions ‘might struggle to find public support initially’ however if poor Cuba ‘can refashion itself during a severe crisis into a novel form of eco-socialism, then no rich country has an excuse for inaction.’  

       Half-Earth Socialism concludes with a short story inspired by William Morris’ 1890 novel News from Nowhere in which William Guest, a socialist from the Victorian era, wakes up in London in the year 2102. In Half-Earth Socialism, William Guest wakes up in the New England area in 2047. It is a time of universal veganism where humans appear to live mostly in smallish districts which require at least most people to farm a few hours a day. Housing is dorm style, coffee is pricey (food miles et al) and oranges from Florida are a rare treat, but apparently the local berries are wonderful. It is a cozy vision if one has a fetish for the 18th century. 

      It is interesting to ponder what a political campaign based on all this would actually look like. What slogans would be coined? Currently less than 2 percent of the American workforce makes a living farming. Is there a way to convince a majority to return to a more rural life?  It is true that Homo sapiens often display a strong ability to get used to any material circumstance but how often have difficult circumstances been deliberately chosen or, in what would have to be in the case of degrowth, actually fought hard for? 

      In reality, around 3.3. billion people on the planet still live without a consistent source of electricity- in places where per-capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year, or less than the amount used by a decent refrigerator. Global electricity demand figures to double in the next 15-20 years if not sooner. And if there is one law of history that has proven to be universal is that as places develop people living there consume more, not less, meat. This will take economic growth. 

     Degrowthers argue this can all be balanced out with developing countries allowed to grow to a certain point while developed countries can do with less. Not likely that a consensus about that balance would ever be reached not to mention it is a virtual impossibility the working class, nor any class, will ever rally to the degrowth cause. 

     What is needed is not an absence of growth, but growth that is planned and democratic.  Public banking can make necessary investments not profitable to markets, worker-controlled mines can lead the transition from fossil fuels, and automation can be a force for more luxury and free-time instead of displacement and exploitation. In other words, prosperity for all- a cause that seems like it could gather the support of the masses.    

---