Noah Smith delivers a jarring intervention in the climate debate by arguing that the most dangerous threat to European prosperity isn't American competition or Russian aggression, but an internal ideological shift toward voluntary impoverishment. He contends that while critics of capitalism have historically promised abundance, a new faction of leftist economists is now explicitly advocating for "degrowth"—a policy framework designed to shrink economies and lower living standards in wealthy nations, specifically targeting Europe.
The Shift from Abundance to Scarcity
Smith opens by contextualizing the current economic anxiety in Europe as a debate over whether the continent is falling behind the U.S. or simply choosing a different path with less work and more leisure. However, he quickly pivots to what he identifies as a far more radical and dangerous second debate: "whether Europeans should be rich at all." He points to a manifesto by Thomas Piketty and a subsequent Guardian editorial signed by prominent figures like Joseph Stiglitz and Kate Raworth, which calls for "labour hour reductions, growth caps in rich countries, less material consumption, and changes in food habits" as the primary solution to climate change.
Smith argues that this represents a profound historical reversal. He notes that while 20th-century communism promised to out-produce capitalism to ensure better living standards, the modern degrowth movement has inverted this logic. "Yes, the new line goes, leftism will make you poorer — but that's a good thing," Smith writes, suggesting the motivation is now rooted in moral penance for colonial sins rather than material improvement. This framing is striking because it highlights how a movement once defined by its hunger for industrial capacity has now embraced the idea of deliberate economic contraction as a virtue.
"Degrowth is a movement for European impoverishment."
Critics might argue that Smith oversimplifies the degrowth position, which often emphasizes redistributing existing wealth rather than simply shrinking the pie. However, the author's focus remains on the practical outcome: if growth stops or reverses while demands for universal public provisioning remain, the math simply doesn't work without a drop in living standards.
The Intellectual Architecture of Degrowth
The commentary then dissects the rhetorical style of degrowth literature, which Smith characterizes as "pure snake oil" filled with buzzwords designed to unify disparate factions of the left rather than solve technical problems. He cites a systematic review by Savin and van den Bergh (2024) that found almost 90% of degrowth studies are opinions rather than analysis, lacking quantitative data or formal modeling. Smith uses this to dismantle the credibility of the Guardian op-ed's claim that they have "done the maths."
He points out that the proposal promises massive social investments—"investing in children, housing, health, education and transport through universal public provisioning"—while simultaneously cutting off the economic engine required to fund them. Smith writes, "As the authors surely know — and as any cursory attempt at actual 'maths' would have easily shown — this will be utterly impossible if European countries are forced to degrow." This critique lands with force because it exposes a fundamental contradiction in the policy: you cannot expand the welfare state while shrinking the tax base that supports it.
Smith also draws a historical parallel to the "Great Stagnation" and the collapse of Soviet central planning, noting that the Soviet Union and Venezuela were once praised by some leftists for their growth models before those systems failed to deliver abundance. He argues that the current push for degrowth is an attempt to fill the ideological void left by communism's failure, but this time with a sales pitch centered on scarcity rather than surplus.
"No matter how you measure poverty, there is no country that has escaped poverty without growth, and there is no country that has substantial amounts of poverty after growth has occurred."
This evidence suggests that the historical record strongly contradicts the degrowth premise. While proponents argue that growth has become decoupled from shared prosperity, Smith insists the data shows a direct correlation between economic expansion and poverty reduction globally. The argument here is that ignoring this empirical reality in favor of ideological purity is a dangerous gamble for European policymakers.
Strategic Vulnerability at a Critical Moment
The final section of Smith's piece elevates the stakes from domestic economics to global geopolitics. He argues that Europe is currently facing a "dire military threat" from Russia and an economic siege from China, making the adoption of degrowth policies potentially catastrophic. With European supply chains dependent on Chinese materials and militaries struggling to adapt to drone warfare, Smith contends that shrinking the economy would be self-sabotage.
He warns that embracing degrowth now would mean "shut[ting] down nuclear power plants, regulat[ing] the AI industry out of existence, [and] forcib[ly] shortening working hours" at a time when Europe needs every ounce of industrial and technological capacity to defend itself. Smith writes, "To embrace the poisonous nonsense of degrowth now... would be to cripple one of the last few remaining economic engines of the free world, at precisely the time when it's under its greatest external challenge."
This is perhaps the most urgent part of his commentary. It reframes the debate not as an abstract philosophical disagreement about consumption but as a matter of national survival in a multipolar world where rivals like Russia and China are aggressively expanding their influence. The argument suggests that while the U.S. turns inward, Europe's role as a champion of human rights and democratic stability depends on maintaining its economic strength.
"There has never been a better time to ignore the pronouncements of Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, and the other rogue economists who want to turn 'Europoor' from a slur into a grim reality."
Critics might note that Smith's focus on military readiness could be seen as prioritizing hard power over ecological necessity. However, his underlying point is that a weakened Europe cannot effectively champion global values or protect its citizens if it voluntarily dismantles the economic foundation required to sustain those institutions. The tension between immediate environmental action and long-term strategic resilience remains unresolved in this view.
Bottom Line
Smith's strongest contribution is exposing the practical impossibility of funding expansive social programs through deliberate economic contraction, backed by a stark assessment of Europe's geopolitical vulnerability. His biggest weakness lies in potentially underestimating the political traction of degrowth as a moral imperative for climate action, but his warning that this ideology could leave Europe defenseless against authoritarian rivals is a compelling call to prioritize resilience over purity.