CBS re­search­er: “The cli­mate de­bate is stuck in a fake fight over growth”

Should we save the climate by investing heavily in green technology and creating new growth?
Or should we consume less, produce less – and accept lower economic growth?

This is often how the climate debate is framed, but according to a new study from Copenhagen Business School, the question itself is wrong and risks getting in the way of the solutions that can actually move us forward.

“We’re discussing this as if we have to choose between two clear-cut camps. But in reality, the terms cover a whole range of different political projects,” says Jacob Hasselbalch, Associate Professor at CBS and co-author of the study, which has just been published in the scientific journal Ecological Economics together with Mathias Larsen from the LSE Grantham Institute.

Two labels, loads of different visions

In the international debate, ‘green growth’ and ‘degrowth’ (zero growth) are often presented as opposites.

Green growth is typically linked to technological solutions, market mechanisms and private investments, but the term is also used to mean strong government control, active industrial policy and big public investments – like we are currently seeing in the EU’s green industrial plans.

On the other hand, degrowth ranges from local communities and shorter working hours to more far-reaching visions of planned, high-tech economies.

“When such different ideas come together under two opposing headings, the debate gets simplified for no good reason,” says Jacob Hasselbalch.

According to the researchers, the two concepts act like broad umbrella terms, but the problem arises up when they are reduced to an either-or.

Polarisation pushes concrete solutions into the background

The researchers say the opposition between green growth and degrowth is fake. Not because there are not any real disagreements – but because the front line hides the fact that there is also overlap and shared interests.

The consequence could be political paralysis.

Instead of asking whether growth in itself is good or bad, he suggests a different question:

“How do we create new, broad political coalitions to speed up the transition?”

Green as well as zero growth want more renewable energy, more energy-efficient homes, less reliance on fossil fuels, a green industry, and less waste of resources. We need to focus on the shared priorities that in practice shape the economy.

Also a question about safety and fairness

According to the researchers, the discussion is especially relevant at a time when climate, energy supply and geopolitics are closely linked.

“The green transition is not just about CO₂, it is also about energy independence and security. When we invest in renewable energy, we also reduce our vulnerability to geopolitical conflicts,” says Jacob Hasselbalch.

But the transition needs to feel fair, he stresses.

“If the green transition only comes across as an abstract climate project, it loses support. It should also make people’s everyday lives better – through jobs, lower energy bills or a better quality of life.”

From ideological battles to political combinations

The study does not point to one single right model for the economy of the future. Instead, the message is that the climate debate should move away from that big, principled showdown between growth and zero growth.

If we keep sticking to the story that we have to pick a side, we risk missing the compromises and combinations that can bring broad majorities together behind ambitious climate policy.

“It is less about winning a theoretical argument and more about finding the political solutions that can actually get us through the transition quickly and fairly,” says Jacob Hasselbalch.