Schuyler Kempton challenges a foundational assumption of modern policy: that we can grow our way out of the climate crisis. While most debates focus on whether environmental rules will hurt the economy, Kempton argues that the very pursuit of Gross Domestic Product growth is the engine driving ecological collapse. This is not a call for stagnation, but a rigorous interrogation of whether "green growth" is a mathematical impossibility disguised as a solution.
The Decoupling Myth
The piece centers on a pivotal 2019 review paper by Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis titled "Is Green Growth Possible?" Kempton uses their findings to dismantle the prevailing optimism that technology alone will save us. The core argument rests on the concept of "decoupling"—the idea that an economy can expand while its resource use and carbon emissions shrink. Kempton explains that while "relative decoupling" (growing faster than we use resources) is happening, "absolute decoupling" (using fewer resources while the economy grows) is not occurring at the speed or scale required to prevent catastrophic warming.
As Schuyler Kempton puts it, "Hickel and Kallis characterize green growth as based 'on the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions is feasible... and at a rate sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change.'" The evidence presented suggests this assumption is flawed. Even under highly optimistic models, global resource use continues to climb. Kempton highlights a study by Schandl et al. which modeled three scenarios for 2050, ranging from no policy changes to aggressive carbon pricing and efficiency gains. In every single scenario, global resource use increased, albeit at different rates.
This is a sobering reality check for policymakers who believe efficiency gains will naturally offset the increased consumption that comes with a growing economy. The article notes that while the global material footprint growth rate has slowed, it has not reversed. Kempton writes, "Empirical projections show no absolute decoupling at a global scale, even under highly optimistic conditions." This suggests that the current trajectory of the global economy is physically incompatible with a stable climate.
Critics might argue that the models rely on historical data that cannot account for future technological breakthroughs, such as nuclear fusion or perfect recycling. Kempton acknowledges this possibility but frames it as a dangerous gamble: "We cannot rule out substitutions or technological breakthroughs that will push such limits so far into the future as to render them irrelevant... However, this is a gamble, and even if massive technological advances in efficiency occur, that does not guarantee that sufficient decoupling will follow."
The fear of economic contraction has become a dangerous straitjacket, preventing the very policies needed to avert climate collapse.
The Human Cost of Growth Dependence
Moving beyond the physics, Kempton explores the political and social implications of our addiction to growth. The essay introduces a compelling distinction between "empirical questions" (can we decouple?) and "value questions" (should we?). The argument shifts to how the fear of a shrinking economy paralyzes necessary action. Kempton cites Beth Stratford, who argues that the specter of a recession is used to block everything from labor rights to pandemic safety measures.
Kempton writes, "The fear of the consequences of economic contraction has been a major impediment to the containment of a pandemic, just as it has proved a major impediment to effective climate policy." This reframing is crucial. It suggests that the resistance to environmental policy isn't just about corporate greed, but a systemic inability to imagine an economy that doesn't rely on perpetual expansion. The article posits that escaping this "growth dependence" is the only way to build the political confidence needed to scale back destructive industries.
To illustrate a path forward, Kempton introduces the concept of "doughnut economics," which seeks to meet human needs without overshooting planetary boundaries. This approach requires a shift in what we value. Instead of GDP, the focus moves to well-being, time, and security. The piece suggests that a transition away from growth dependence could actually improve lives by reducing working hours and strengthening social safety nets.
Reimagining Success
To ground these abstract concepts, Kempton brings in a personal narrative, consulting two former economics professors: Jonathan Diskin and Raja Krishnan. This section adds a human dimension to the debate, showing that even within the economics profession, there is a split between orthodox views that support green growth and heterodox views that question the primacy of GDP.
Professor Diskin, who is sympathetic to growth critics, offers a nuanced perspective on what "development" actually means. He challenges the reader to consider that growth doesn't always require more material consumption. As Schuyler Kempton reports, Diskin notes, "Growth often takes the form of people becoming educated and skilled in new ways... sometimes it consumes far fewer resources." This distinction is vital for busy readers who might equate economic progress solely with buying more things. It suggests that a society can become more advanced, creative, and capable without burning more fossil fuels.
However, Kempton also ensures the counter-argument is heard. Professor Krishnan represents the pro-green growth camp, and the article acknowledges the brutal reality that the rise of global capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and extended life expectancy. The essay does not dismiss these gains but asks if the current model can sustain them indefinitely. The tension between the need for development and the limits of the planet is left unresolved, inviting the reader to sit with the discomfort.
Kempton concludes by emphasizing that the debate is not just about numbers, but about the kind of world we want to inhabit. "If we're not gonna call them growth, then how do we talk about those things?" he asks, channeling Diskin's inquiry. The piece implies that until we develop a new vocabulary for progress that isn't tied to GDP, we will remain trapped in a cycle of ecological destruction.
Bottom Line
Kempton's most powerful contribution is the shift from asking "how can we grow green?" to "is growth the problem?" The strongest part of the argument is the empirical dismantling of the decoupling myth, which exposes the fragility of current climate strategies. The biggest vulnerability remains the political difficulty of implementing policies that might slow growth in the short term, even if they secure long-term survival. Readers should watch for how governments respond to these limits: will they double down on unproven technologies, or begin the hard work of redefining economic success?