On Degrowth: An Interview with Dr. Giorgos Kallis

A sign from a Fridays for Future protest, a movement inspired by Greta Thunberg that protests against a lack of action from governments and corporations on climate change. Photo by Stefan Müller.

With the climate crisis looming, many find it increasingly important to examine capitalism’s role in causing climate change. To this end, many activists and policymakers have started to advocate for a Green New Deal. There are varying conceptions of what a Green New Deal would look like, but all share a desire to (at least somewhat) change the structure of the economy to address the climate crisis in an economically and socially just manner. As Saikat Chakrabarti, the former chief of staff of one of the Green New Deal’s strongest proponents, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), stated: “[W]e really think of [the Green New Deal] as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Chakrabarti’s comment was met with alarmist coverage from right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, which framed it as “a remark likely to fuel Republican claims that the deal is nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy.” However, Chakrabarti’s statement is in line with what has been a distinct ideological shift within America, especially among younger people. As Axios reported in 2021, “18-34 year-olds are almost evenly split between those who view capitalism positively and those who view it negatively.” Just two years before, there was a “gaping twenty point margin.” Clearly, there is growing interest among America’s young people in alternative economic systems, in a large part inspired by the climate crisis. 

However, not all of those on the left agree that the Green New Deal, as imagined by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and similar progressives, is the best way forward. Some question the necessity of economic growth within this conception of the Green New Deal, and plans to tackle  climate change more generally. Instead, they believe that any plan to effectively address the climate crisis must implement degrowth to be successful. According to a website which seeks to educate and provide news on the “degrowth” movement, the term “degrowth” is “an idea that critiques the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction.” Some economists, such as Branko Milanović, have harshly critiqued the degrowth movement, and the movement has frequently been maligned and misunderstood by the media. 

To this end, I interviewed prominent degrowth researcher and advocate Dr. Giorgos Kallis of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Dr. Kallis is a prominent figure within the degrowth movement, having conducted research in this area as well as having authored several books and papers, including In Defense of Degrowth and Limits: Why Malthus Was Wrong and Why Environmentalists Should Care.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

How would you define degrowth?

Degrowth is a call to abandon the blind pursuit of more and more GDP and put people and the planet first.

There are many organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), that are pushing a vision of “green growth” as a way to fight against climate change. The OECD defines green growth as “fostering economic growth and development, while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies.” Even plans proposed by progressives, such as many conceptions of the Green New Deal, involve growth. How would you respond to claims that green growth will be enough to avert the climate crisis?

It won't. We have written a paper about it with Jason Hickel. Three percent growth each year means an economy 10 times bigger by the end of the century. Obviously it is much, much easier to decarbonize an economy that is 10 times smaller than it would otherwise be. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] scenarios square economic growth with staying within 1.5 degrees Celsius only by recoursing to imaginary negative emission technologies that may be available some time in the future.

Some academics, such as Branko Milanović, have labeled degrowth as “magical thinking,” claiming that degrowth economists want to reduce the incomes of the majority of people living in Global North countries but do not want to say this outright as it would be “political suicide.” How would you respond to claims like these?

Well, I would turn the table to Branko. Quoting Greta Thunberg, I’d respond that what is “magical thinking” is the fairytale of unlimited economic growth. My starting point is that continuous growth is leading to planetary breakdown. Then I start contemplating alternatives. There are no easy alternatives. The most pressing question for 21st century economists, as opposed to 19th century ones, should be how we can live well within limits, how we can become slower by design not disaster, as Peter Victor has put it. Are there easy answers? No. Is it easy politically to pass this message? No, not at all. But who said that as academics we are supposed to offer “politically correct” and palatable diagnoses and proposals? I wait for the day when brilliant economists like Branko Milanović join those of us who ask alone and in the void these hard questions, rather than tell us down with the obvious, “it is impossible.” To the specifics: studies by Julia Steinberger and colleagues show that decent living is achievable at a fraction of current global energy use. If people have access to all the resources they need to live fruitful lives, the nominal income that will correspond to this resource/energy use is of secondary importance.

What kinds of policies would you want to see implemented on the road to degrowth?

A Green New Deal but without growth, a universal care income, a reduction of the working week, a serious overhaul of the taxation system with taxes on wealth and high incomes, a maximum income, and a shift from income to carbon/resource taxation.

 Are there any policies currently being implemented that cause you to be hopeful about the future of degrowth?

No. But there were no policies that would give anyone hope in feudal Europe either. Things change and in unpredictable ways. What gives me hope is that more and more people long for change and that many people organize locally to protect and reclaim their commons, creating real, alternative economies on the ground.

Elijah Horn (CC ’25) is a first-year student at Columbia College. He is from Eastern Pennsylvania and plans to study creative writing. His non-literary interests include climate change, economic policy, and media criticism.