By Rosaleen McGowan
Britain’s economy has almost doubled in size since 1990. Over the same period, its territorial greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by approximately 54%, reaching their lowest level since 1872. In an era where economic expansion and environmental degradation are so often understood as inseparable, seeing the two move in opposite directions seems almost remarkable. At first glance, it offers an extraordinary degree of optimism for those who believe economic growth and environmental sustainability can coexist.
Economic growth has long been considered a measure of economic progress, reinforcing higher wages, greater employment, and stronger public finances. However, the production and consumption that accompany economic growth require energy, raw materials, and land, placing pressure on the natural environment for necessary resources. This tension brings two competing perspectives into focus, especially when we consider the long-term forecast of future economic growth. ‘Green growth’ argues that economies can continue expanding while reducing environmental damage, and degrowth questions whether continuous expansion is sustainable at all. The question, then, is whether the future of sustainable development lies in transforming our existing model of economic growth, or in challenging the model itself.
Britain’s reduction in emissions has largely been driven by changes in the industries and energy sources on which its economy depends. The phase out of coal power, for instance, has allowed the UK to produce more electricity with considerably lower emissions. Investment in renewable energy models and improvements in energy efficiency have made it possible to maintain economic activity while reducing some of its environmental costs, fully consistent with the principle behind green growth; rather than limiting economic expansion, it seeks to make its economic expansion less dependent on the consumption of finite resources and the production of pollution. The UK provides a notable example of how economic growth and environmental progress need not be mutually exclusive, at least in terms of domestic emissions.
Despite this progress, the UK’s experience fails to fully demonstrate how economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable in every respect. Lower domestic emissions do not account for the full environmental costs of imported goods, resource extraction, or the waste associated with consumption in wealthy economies. This distinction is visible in the UK’s material footprint. According to the Office for National Statistics, domestic extraction accounted for only 27% of the UK’s material footprint in 2018, down from 40% in 1997. Therefore, it’s suggested that a significant proportion of materials required to meet UK consumption are extracted abroad. An economy may become ‘cleaner’ in how it manages production while remaining highly dependent on resource-intensive consumption. A major limitation of the green growth argument, therefore, is that technological advances and cleaner energy can reduce the environmental expenditure of production without actually addressing the scale of consumption or the natural resources required to sustain it.
The economic model of the United States offers a fascinating counterexample, where the scale of resource consumption challenges the idea that economic growth can become sustainable through efficiency adjustments alone. Between 1990 and 2025, real GDP increased by approximately 95% in the UK and 137% in the US, meaning both economies experienced substantial growth, though the US expanded at a faster rate. Domestic material consumption in the US reached approximately 22.5 tonnes per person in 2024, compared with 8.8 tonnes in the UK. This measure includes the materials used by the economy through domestic extraction and imports, less exports. While it doesn’t capture every environmental impact, such a difference demonstrates the greater volume of materials used per person in the US economy; it emphasizes the difficulty of relying on efficiency improvements alone when overall resource demand remains high. The degrowth case of economic development therefore raises concerns about whether continued economic expansion in already wealthy economies, such as the US, can be reconciled with finite natural resources even as production becomes more efficient.
Proponents of the ‘degrowth’ case argue that wealthy economies should place less emphasis on increasing GDP and greater emphasis on improving living standards within environmental limits. A 2024 review by Engler et al. examines 951 academic publications and identifies reducing resource and energy consumption as a major theme within degrowth research. In practice, this would involve scaling back resource-intensive industries and forms of consumption while maintaining or expanding areas such as healthcare, education, and public services. Rather than treating the volume of goods and services produced as a primary measure of economic success, degrowth places importance on whether economic activity improves the quality of life without exceeding ecological limits. It therefore intends to reconsider the need for economic expansion itself, instead of simply improving the way through which that growth is achieved.
Neither economic case is without its challenges. Green growth is contingent on technological progression and efficiency improvement being rapid enough to reduce environmental damage, as economies continue to expand. However, research by Harberl et al. (2020), reviewing 853 empirical studies, found that although relative decoupling of GDP from greenhouse gas emissions is quite common, evidence of absolute decoupling from material resource use remains limited. Reducing the environmental impact of each unit of economic output doesn’t necessarily mean that total resource consumption is falling. Degrowth, on the other hand, faces the challenge of how economies built around continuous expansion could maintain employment, public services, and high living standards with lower levels of production. Engler et al. also identify a lack of legitimate proposals concerning monetary and distributional policy within degrowth research, emphasizing the difficulty of applying its principles into a realistic economic framework. Reducing resource consumption may ease environmental pressure, but achieving this without creating significant economic and social disruption remains a difficult task.
The debate between green growth and degrowth reveals a larger question about the purpose of economic progress. The UK case demonstrates that economic expansion can coincide with significant reductions in certain environmental impacts, though the material footprint it leaves complicates this case. Meanwhile, the resource demands of economies such as the US illustrate the limitations of relying on efficiency alone. Neither approach offers a straightforward solution, and the feasibility of each will ultimately depend on how successfully environmental objectives can be reconciled with economic and social priorities. What is clear, however, is that economic growth cannot be considered sustainable solely given rising output. Its long-term success must also be judged by the environmental cost it generates and the extent to which those costs can be reduced.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Credit: Unsplash