Turn --- Degrowth makes the environment dirtier. It ignores natural economic consumption and production cycles.

The first interpretation of degrowth is striving for negative GDP growth or a reduction in GDP (Gross Domestic Product).1 This is the most logical interpretation and useful one in the sense that it is likely to be understood as such by most economists, politicians and the general public. The reason is that it sounds as the opposite of (economic) growth, which in common use and the media is not a term denoting some vague development pattern but synonymous with GDP growth. According to this interpretation of degrowth, the current economic–financial crisis associated with less GDP growth or even a reduction in GDP is then seen by some as good for the environment (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010). But this conclusion is difficult to draw in general. The direct, short-term effect of reduced GDP growth may be, for example, fewer CO2 emissions as aggregate production falls. However, the long term effect is uncertain, as GDP degrowth may depress investments in cleaner technologies, renewable energy and related research, which can lead to an increase in future CO2 emissions. Even the short-term effect is uncertain, as production during a period of crisis may well shift to cheaper, dirtier techniques. Moreover, as is illustrated by recent events, both governments and firms are likely to pay less attention to environmental considerations and policies during a period of crisis.

GDP degrowth means a blunt instrument of environmental policy which reverses the causality between policy and growth as it is normally understood. Instead of putting good policy first and then seeing whether degrowth is a consequence, the degrowth strategy is to set the aim of degrowth first and then hope that the environment will come out well. However, this cannot guarantee a very focused, effective and efficient approach to reduce environmental pressure. Worse even, degrowth might turn out to be dirty. In fact, degrowth can be the result of producing less efficiently, i.e. having less output with more inputs, including more resources, energy, pollution and waste. In other words, degrowth is not a sufficient condition for reducing environmental pressure. Smaller is not always more beautiful — although I certainly would not go as far as Wilfred Beckerman in saying that “Small is stupid” in general, or that “large” (growth) is necessary for environmental improvement (Beckerman, 1995).2

I fear that the focus of the degrowth strategy on the scale or size of the economy (measured in GDP) is neglecting the important role of the composition of both consumption and production, which can considerably change in response to stringent environmental regula-

tion (and to a lesser extent the more complicated contribution of technological change). To put it a bit simplistically, we want especially the dirty or dirtiest sectors to “degrow” if they do not succeed in adopting sufficiently clean technologies or realizing a substitution away from dirty inputs. Simultaneously, cleaner production, such as of electricity from renewable energy, may grow, which in turn would add to GDP growth. This illustrates that the relation between environmental quality and economic growth is more complex than degrowth (as well as growth) advocates suggest. Of course, no one can hope to predict and plan for all this differential or selective growth and degrowth of dirty and cleaner activities in the economy. A subtle type of regulation and information provision will be needed, which surely will have to make use of some type of price regulation.