DegrowthUK

Really pleased to publish this article.
Our new series, "Degrowth and Ecosocialism: the global picture".
The first article.
The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability – degrowthUK
https://degrowthuk.org/2026/03/11/the-eus-retreat-on-corporate-accountability/
Another article coming tomorrow! […]

@degrowthuk thank you man for saying it. the environmental community has to get its act together man, right now. people need to hear what you said right now, it is soso important.

A note from our good friend @casdeiro on how small political parties can exert, why we have called "minority influence" (after Romanian/French social psychologist Serge Moscovici).
Manuel descibes the "mini effect".

Dual strategies and the 'Mini effect' | degrowth.info […]

Call for articles: Degrowth and Ecosocialism: the global picture Degrowth UK plans to run a series of articles as a stock-take of degrowth and ecosocialism worldwide. We envisage two types of contribution. 1) Short pieces (up to 2,000 words) summarising the situ…

We are seeking more contributions to the series, both country/regional or thematic focussed. Here's the call.
degrowthuk.org/2026/01/21/c...

#degrowth

International Energy Agency:
"Greatest supply disruption in the history of oil."

It's a foretaste of the future energy-constrained future. So now's a good time to plan

But that's not being admitted in mainstream discussions.

#PeakOil #Hormuz #collapse
#degrowth

The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability # The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability: ### Growth, Imperial Extraction, and the Limits of Regulation _by_ Alice Puerto* In the series Degrowth and Ecosocialism: the global picture In 2025, the European Union took what may prove to be a historic step backward. Under pressure from a consolidated right–far-right bloc in the European Parliament, led by the European People’s Party and allied with nationalist forces, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) was significantly weakened. What had been presented as a breakthrough for human rights and environmental protection has been narrowed, delayed, and diluted in the name of “competitiveness.” This retreat is not simply a technical adjustment to regulatory scope. It is a revealing moment in the political economy of Europe. It shows the structural incompatibility between a growth-dependent economic model and meaningful limits on corporate power. More fundamentally, it exposes how the prosperity of the Global North remains bound to extractive relations with the Global South, relations that degrowth and ecosocialist thinkers have long identified as forms of ecological imperialism. ## From Rana Plaza to Rollback The original rationale for EU-wide due diligence legislation was clear. After the 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh, which killed 1,138 garment workers, producing for global brands public outrage forced European policymakers to confront the violence embedded in global supply chains (Reuters, “EU strikes deal to further weaken corporate sustainability laws”, 9 December 2025). As political economist John Smith (2014) argues, the disaster functioned as a kind of “x-ray” of the global economy, revealing structural features that usually remain hidden from view. The collapse exposed how the production of cheap consumer goods for Western markets relies on extremely low wages and unsafe working conditions in export-oriented manufacturing zones. In this sense, the tragedy was not simply an industrial accident but a manifestation of the global system of labour arbitrage that underpins contemporary capitalism. Smith argues that the relocation of manufacturing to low-wage countries has become central to the accumulation strategies of multinational corporations. These wage differentials allow corporations to capture value generated by workers in the Global South while profits are beneficial and concentrated in the Global North. The promise of due diligence was straightforward: corporations would be legally responsible not only for their own operations but for harms occurring throughout their value chains (European Commission, 2023). Under the weakened version adopted in 2025 (European Council press release on the simplification of sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements, 2025), this principle has been hollowed out. Obligations are largely confined to companies’ own operations, subsidiaries, and direct suppliers. Indirect suppliers, where forced labour, land grabs, toxic dumping, and violent repression most often occur, are effectively placed beyond scrutiny. Thresholds have been raised, drastically reducing the number of companies covered. This narrowing of scope is decisive. A Cornell University modelling of European supply chains has shown that while a small minority of companies face forced or child labour risks among direct suppliers, the overwhelming majority face such risks in second- and third-tier suppliers. In other words, abuses are concentrated precisely in the upstream segments that the revised directive now sidesteps. The political message is unmistakable: Europe is unwilling to look where its prosperity is actually made possible. ## Growth as Structural Constraint To understand this rollback, we must move beyond parliamentary arithmetic. The alliance between conservative and nationalist forces is not an anomaly; it reflects the deeper logic of a system organised around economic growth. The European economy remains dependent on continuous material expansion. Despite rhetoric about “green growth,” Europe’s resource consumption relies heavily on imported fossil fuels, minerals, agricultural commodities, and manufactured goods. The apparent decoupling of GDP from emissions within Europe is achieved, in part, by outsourcing energy-intensive production and environmental destruction elsewhere. A robust due diligence regime, one that truly covered entire supply chains, would expose this dependence. It would reveal that cheap consumer goods, renewable technologies, and infrastructure projects are built upon land dispossession, precarious labour, and ecological degradation in the Global South. To regulate supply chains seriously would mean confronting the material basis of European living standards. This is where degrowth analysis becomes essential. Degrowth is not merely a call for voluntary simplicity or lifestyle change. It is a structural critique of an economic system that requires perpetual expansion. Degrowth itself is the subject of ongoing debate, both in academic literature and within activist networks such as Degrowth UK. The main debate concerns whether it should be understood as a research programme, a political project, or a broader social movement. Scholars such as Kallis, Demaria, and D’Alisa (2015) emphasize its role as a scientific and theoretical framework for studying post-growth economies, highlighting how degrowth functions as a research programme and as a vision for socio-economic transformation. In contrast, activist networks like Degrowth UK (2023) focus on its practical and political dimensions, promoting degrowth as a social movement and a political project aiming to challenge the dominance of GDP growth in contemporary societies. In this sense, degrowth simultaneously operates as a research programme, a social movement, and a political vision. The weakening of the CS3D is therefore not accidental; it reflects the deeper incompatibility between growth-dependent economic systems and meaningful forms of social and ecological justice. ## Ecological Unequal Exchange Globalisation did not flatten the world. It reorganised it. Core economies continue to accumulate wealth by appropriating value from peripheral ones through what political economists call unequal exchange. This operates not only through wage differentials but through ecological asymmetries: land, water, minerals, energy, and waste absorption capacity are disproportionately mobilised in the South to sustain consumption in the North. This dynamic is referred to as ecological unequal exchange, a concept emerging from political ecology and ecological economics, and has been extensively analyzed by Jason Hickel on global resource flows and ecological debt. GLOBAL SOUTH: Extraction and Production, Mines, Plantations ,Low-wage labor Infrastructures, Click image for a pdf version. Ecological unequal exchange is measurable. Europe imports vast quantities of embodied labour and embodied emissions through global supply chains. The environmental costs, such as toxic pollution, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, are externalised to regions with weaker regulatory frameworks and less geopolitical leverage. When the EU narrows its due diligence obligations, it effectively entrenches this structure. By refusing to scrutinise second and third-tier suppliers, it shields the upstream sites of extraction and exploitation from meaningful accountability. The burden of proof remains on communities with the least power. The language of “competitiveness” used to justify the rollback is revealing. Competitiveness means maintaining cost advantages. Cost advantages depend on accessing cheap labour and cheap nature. Any regulatory framework that seriously disrupts this logic is framed as a threat to European prosperity. ## The Case of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline The dynamics of ecological imperialism are visible in concrete projects. The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), led by TotalEnergies, exemplifies the contradictions at stake. The pipeline, stretching approximately 1,443 kilometres from Uganda to Tanzania, is designed to transport over 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It has already displaced tens of thousands of people, disrupted agricultural livelihoods, and threatened sensitive ecosystems, including protected areas and wetlands. The project is projected to generate tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂ annually, emissions that will overwhelmingly benefit consumers and shareholders far from the affected territories. Local resistance has been met with repression. Students and activists mobilising against the pipeline have faced arrests and intimidation. Communities challenging land acquisition processes have encountered legal and administrative obstacles that reflect profound power asymmetries (Human Rights Watch, 2026; The Guardian, 2023). In France, civil society organisations invoked the 2017 duty of vigilance law to challenge TotalEnergies in court. In October 2025, a Paris court ruled that the company had engaged in misleading commercial practices by presenting itself as a major actor in the energy transition while continuing fossil fuel expansion (Climate Integrity, 2025). The ruling marked a rare moment of institutional accountability. Yet such victories remain fragile. A strong EU-wide due diligence directive could have reinforced these national legal tools and extended their reach across supply chains. Instead, the diluted CS3D risks harmonising downward, setting a ceiling rather than a floor for corporate responsibility. By weakening due diligence at the European level, policymakers effectively grant continued legitimacy to projects like EACOP; so long as they are framed as economically strategic. ## Regulation Without Transformation? None of this means that legal tools are irrelevant. On the contrary, they can create leverage, expose abuses, and shift public discourse. But regulation within a growth-dependent system faces structural limits. As long as European prosperity is tied to high material throughput, externalised environmental costs, and profit-maximising corporate structures, due diligence will remain contested and reversible. Each economic downturn or geopolitical crisis will generate renewed calls to suspend or weaken social and environmental standards in the name of stability. Degrowth and ecosocialism challenge this cycle at its root. They argue that justice requires planned reduction of material and energy use in the Global North, democratic control over production, and reparative redistribution between North and South. This implies shortening supply chains, reducing unnecessary production, prioritising care and public goods over accumulation, and confronting imperial trade relations. Without such transformation, due diligence risks becoming a technical fix applied to a structurally extractive system. ## A Political Crossroads The EU could have used the CS3D to signal a break with corporate impunity and ecological imperialism. Instead, it chose to protect competitiveness. This choice reflects not only the rise of right-wing forces but the deeper hegemony of growth as an unquestioned objective. The question is therefore not simply when corporations will be held accountable. It is whether European societies are willing to reconsider the material foundations of their wealth. If growth requires sacrifice zones, then justice requires contraction, at least in the economies that have benefited most from centuries of extraction. Degrowth is not a utopian add-on to regulatory reform. It is the political horizon that makes genuine accountability conceivable. Until Europe confronts its dependence on unequal exchange, each regulatory advance will remain vulnerable to rollback. The weakening of corporate due diligence is not an aberration. It is a reminder that without systemic transformation, the protection of people and ecosystems will always come second to the protection of accumulation. _____________________________________________ *Alice Puerto is currently a student in the Master’s in Degrowth at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Prior to joining this specialised programme, she studied economics in preparatory classes in France before continuing her studies at Emlyon Business School. Her academic interests focus on the political economy of degrowth, with particular attention to feminist perspectives. She is currently writing her thesis on feminist approaches to degrowth, exploring the connections between capitalism, global extraction, and gendered forms of inequality. ### Share this: * Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Really pleased to publish this article.
The first in our new series, "Degrowth and Ecosocialism: the global picture".

The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability – degrowthUK
https://degrowthuk.org/2026/03/11/the-eus-retreat-on-corporate-accountability/

Verso has published a translation of his book, 'Communism without Growth', in Spanish. Not in English: I wonder why not.

"There is no self deception sillier than techno-scientific optimism, as expressed as follows: 'Up til now science has always found a solution, and it will in the future too'. By the same logic, someone for whom the doctors has known how to cure their illnesses, arrives at the conclusion that […]

The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability

The EU’s Retreat on Corporate Accountability: Growth, Imperial Extraction, and the Limits of Regulation by Alice Puerto* In the series Degrowth and Ecosocialism: the global picture In 2025, the European Union took what may prove to be a historic step […]

This is OK but not a mention of why it's a GREEN party.
Not a mention of ecological overshoot, nor even of the climate crisis.
I find it depressing this repeated missed opportunity.

I predict a Green wave in the local elections. Anyone who thinks our byelection win was an outlier is mistaken | […]

Andy Burnham’s Green Summit (2026)

Mark Burton Some 2,500 people attended Mayor Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester Green Summit on Tuesday 3 March. The Mayor’s address Burnham, fresh from the controversy over the Gorton and Denton by-election controversy, and something of a national political […]

Demand a Better Plan for a Greater Manchester! Transport for Greater Manchester (TFGM) is currently consulting on the future of transport in the city region. Their Vision includes fine words about making Greater Manchester’s transport system inclusive and affordable, environmentally responsible, safe and secure, healthy and well-maintained. Yet the proposed targets and delivery plan fall well short of this Vision. As groups in Greater Manchester with interests in health, the environment, safer roads and better transport, we are calling on Greater Manchester’s leaders to set more ambitious targets. We want them to increase the proportion of trips that people make using clean and healthy transport (e.g. walking, wheeling or cycling, public, shared or community transport). These need to be safe, convenient, affordable and accessible to all, so that fewer people feel their only option is to drive. Please respond to the consultation by 9th March. Just put your name, address and email in the ‘Take Action’ panel, then click the ‘Start Writing’ button to send a response. You can edit the suggested text as you see fit. When you’re ready, hit ‘Send Letter’. The whole process should take less than a minute. Thanks for telling TfGM we need a Better Plan for a Greater Manchester!

You've til Monday to demand a better transport plan for Greater Manchester. We need more than a 8% reduction in motor traffic!!
https://actionnetwork.org/letters/demand-a-better-plan-for-a-greater-manchester?source=direct_link&
#GreaterManchester #transport

Although the 'brilliant' article he cited by Helen Thompson is an odd mix of insights and rather unwarranted inferences.

A very good article from James Meadway on the real vulnerability of the UK economy and UK households.

Globalisation is under threat from Iran war – and Britain is uniquely vulnerable | US-Israel war on Iran | The Guardian […]

Having said all that, the data needs a bit more exploration.
Scotland's decline began earlier and there is a lag of several years from the start of austerity to the precipitous decline in health: takes time for impacts to be realised? Multiple causes and intermediate processes. Reservoir of […]

"Starmer could have made the centrepiece of his manifesto living longer, healthier and better lives. He could have introduced policies designed to make that so, ...
"He didn’t do that. His team talked about growth being the centre of everything, the core of every department’s mission. They went […]

"The figures show this: a child born this morning in Britain can expect to be in good health only until they are 61. The last 20 years of their life will be blighted by illness: dodgy hearts, painful joints, an inability to get about. Our healthy life expectancy has been dropping for years; it […]

War on Iran and the metabolic rift. Another argument for agroecology rather than high (fossil fuel) input industrial agriculture. Of course such a transition can't be done overnight.

How the Iran war could create a ‘fertiliser shock’ – an often ignored global risk to food prices and farming […]

If you missed it on Tim's blog, here it is again.
Long critical read on the #decoupling myth.

A response to Jonathan Aldred: On the tortuous relationship between GDP and macroecological footprints - resilience […]

Our Finite World Resources per capita have fallen too low in key areas, including diesel fuel and critical minerals needed for electrification. Leads to conflict & tariffs.

A New Explanation for Tariffs and Bombings.

Our Finite World | Exploring how oil limits affect the economy
https://ourfiniteworld.com/

@HolosDiscover follow

UK gov. wilfully misses the poiny:
“Food security is national security, and our high degree of food security is built on both strong domestic production and imports through stable trade routes. This government is investing billions in the development of new technology to increase yields or […]

Decoupling …… again _Post updated 12 Feb to draw attention to an error in the Guardian article and another in the ICIU report._ An article appeared in The Guardian on Thursday, December 11th, entitled “Economic growth no longer linked to carbon emissions in most of the world, study finds” 1. The Guardian appears to have a policy of not linking the reports it cites. It is from a London-based NGO, Energy and Climate Analysis Unit (ECAU). The report2 lacks a section on study limitations and cites few references. Nor does it present more than a summary of the data. The claim is bold but there are a number of problems with it. ## Emissions of greenhouse gases are still rising “Total energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 0.8% in 2024, hitting an all-time high of 37.8 Gt CO2. This rise contributed to record atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 422.5 ppm in 2024, around 3 ppm higher than 2023 and 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.” That’s the generally cautious International Energy Agency3. _IEA (2025), Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes and their annual change, 1900-2023, IEA, Parishttps://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-energy-combustion-and-industrial-processes-and-their-annual-change-1900-2023 , Licence: CC BY 4.0_ ## The degree of decoupling is far from enough As Kallis and Hickel pointed out4, the degree of decoupling achieved by those countries is far from sufficient to yield climate safety. Let’s look at the data. The following table shows the scale of reduction in emissions for those countries claimed to be absolutely decoupling over the period 2006-2023.5 | | **Reduction 2015-23** | **Reduction 2006-23** | | **Annual reduction 2015-2023** | **Annual reduction 2006-2023** ---|---|---|---|---|---|--- Austria | | -12.26% | -26.76% | | -1.62% | -1.81% Belgium | | -2.50% | -10.51% | | -0.32% | -0.65% Canada | | -9.29% | -12.36% | | -1.21% | -0.77% Czechia | | -6.96% | -13.70% | | -0.90% | -0.86% Denmark | | -6.96% | -33.31% | | -0.90% | -2.35% Estonia | | -26.54% | -44.12% | | -3.78% | -3.37% Finland | | -15.93% | -47.45% | | -2.15% | -3.71% Germany | | -14.57% | -26.64% | | -1.95% | -1.81% Hungary | | -4.41% | -37.60% | | -0.56% | -2.74% Ireland | | -6.77% | -42.20% | | -0.87% | -3.17% Japan | | -13.52% | -23.06% | | -1.80% | -1.53% Netherlands | | -6.54% | -29.41% | | -0.84% | -2.03% Norway | | -28.84% | -31.19% | | -4.16% | -2.18% Poland | | -8.43% | -12.18% | | -1.10% | -0.76% Romania | | -0.65% | -25.20% | | -0.08% | -1.69% Slovakia | | -8.47% | -18.91% | | -1.10% | -1.23% Spain | | -7.38% | -38.46% | | -0.95% | -2.82% Sweden | | -10.74% | -29.92% | | -1.41% | -2.07% United Kingdom | | -18.41% | -36.48% | | -2.51% | -2.63% USA | | -4.60% | -17.94% | | -0.59% | -1.16% | | | | | | Decoupling countries | | -8.10% | -21.66% | | -1.05% | -1.43% | | | | | | World | | 7.60% | 24.51% | | 0.92% | 1.30% _Own calculations from the Global Carbon Budget’s spreadsheet of national carbon emissions 6. This one is just those consumption emissions attributed to the burning and extraction of fossil fuels: emissions from the changes in land use are additional to these, and available separately. The ECAU uses the same dataset, as that used here._ So, for the United Kingdom, for example, the reduction in consumption emissions for the period 2015-2023 was -18.41%, one of the highest attained. This equated to an average -2.51% per year. Yet to reach net zero emissions by 2050, an annual reduction of 10% would be needed7. Even that would not be enough since this would allocate a disproportionately small share of the global carbon budget to the UK8. For the decoupling countries as a whole, reduction 2015-2023 was -8.1%, an average -1.05% per year, again far from enough. Those countries, together with 21 that only decoupled since 2015, together account for 36% of emissions, 2015-2023. As the table shows, the emissions for the world as a whole have increased, at 1.3% per year since 2006 (a little slower since 2015, but that included the pandemic in 2000). So those decoupling countries are not compensating for the growth in emissions elsewhere. _Global carbon emissions versus those of the consistently decoupling countries, 2006-23. Note, the metric is of carbon (C). To convert to CO2, as used in the IEA graph, multiply by 3.644._ It is also worth noting that the actual growth rates in these consistently decoupling countries over this period have been low. So that for the world as a whole, the decoupling challenge is clearly greater. _World Bank data (as used in the ECAU study) showing lower GDP growth rates in the consistently decoupling group compared to their other high income peers and to the world overall._ ## How good is the data? There are questions about the reliability of such data. Drill into the methodology and a lot of it, particularly for consumption emissions is estimated from other data, with multiple uncertainties9. ## GDP estimates can be inflated Most of the absolute decoupling countries are richer ones. The problem here is that despite using PPP (purchasing power parity), GDP in richer countries is calculated on prices there, but the products are produced in poorer countries with lower prices. (Expropriation of value). So GDP, as measured is inflated in the rich countries10. It means that decoupling is potentially overestimated, particularly where imports increase over time. ## A preliminary conclusion The above is a quick response to the article, and the report on which it is based. The reduction in emissions is too small to make a real difference – after all, those decoupling countries are still emitting, and as Parrique11, Victor12 and others have pointed out, GDP growth makes it harder to make emissions reductions. Counterfactually, how much bigger would reductions have been without GDP growth? Finally (for now at least), a lot of this reduction is dependent on substitution of fossil fuel generation with industrial scale ‘renewable’ power. That substitution gets harder to implement as the easier applications are substituted first, and the harder ones (heavy transport, heavy industry) are likely to slow down future decarbonisation. Moreover, those renewable energy capture systems themselves have a major material footprint, with other dire ecological consequences, not to mention all the social impacts of mining.13 Beware a ‘carbon tunnel vision’. Carbon is important, but not the only thing. GDP growth is toxic to life. Mark H Burton _minor edit: 9/1/26_ **_update 12 Feb_ : Incorrect information in both the Guardian article and the ECIU report.** The Guardian states: “ _Countries representing 92% of the global economy have now decoupled consumption-based carbon emissions and GDP expansion, according to the report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU).”_**This is incorrect.** The ECIU report actually says _“Today, countries responsible for 46.3% of global GDP and 36.1% of global emissions have_ _absolutely decoupled. Overall, 92% of global GDP and 89% of global emissions are in economies that have decoupled, either relatively or absolutely…”_ The Guardian implies that meaningful decoupling has occurred in countries responsible for 82% of emissions. But relative decoupling is not meaningful decoupling: it just means that therate of growth of emissions is slower than that of GDP. Big Deal. The ECIU report is clear that absolute decoupling has only taken place in countries responsible for 36.1% of emissions. **Even this is incorrect.** In 2023, **the 21 absolutely decoupling countries accounted for** **25.89%** of global emissions (my calculation using the same dataset used by ECIU). Even if we scale that up (since their data accounts for “113 countries representing over 97% of global GDP and 93% of global emissions”, by that factor of 1/0.93, the figure only reaches 27.84%. **Yet again, the bold claims for decoupling are misleading.** Citations 1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/11/economic-growth-no-longer-linked-to-carbon-emissions-in-most-of-the-world-study-finds For a cookie-less version, use https://web.archive.org/web/20251213024642/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/11/economic-growth-no-longer-linked-to-carbon-emissions-in-most-of-the-world-study-finds 2 https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/10YPP_Decoupling_Globally_2025.pdf?v=1765386016 3 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-energy-combustion-and-industrial-processes-and-their-annual-change-1900-2023 4 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00174-2/fulltext 5 Absolute decoupling is where GDP increases and emissions fall. See the cited report for definitions of decoupling. 6 https://globalcarbonbudget.org/download/2345/?tmstv=1762815968 7 https://degrowthuk.org/2025/08/01/renewables-carbon-and-the-energy-crisis/ 8 As pointed out in my article, just cited, and by Tyndall centre scientists, see https://theconversation.com/the-uks-year-of-climate-u-turns-exposes-a-deeper-failure-254499 9 https://steadystatemanchester.net/2016/04/15/new-evidence-on-decoupling-carbon-emissions-from-gdp-growth-what-does-it-mean/ 10 See Smith, J. (2012). The GDP Illusion: Value Added versus Value Capture. Monthly Review, 64(3), 86–102. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-gdp-illusion/ 11 e.g. https://idh21.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Can-Europe-green-its-growth_CunyParrique_IDH21_2024-V2.pdf see the conclusion. 12 Victor, P. A. (2019). _Managing without growth: Slower by design, not disaster_ (Second edition). Edward Elgar Publishing. 13 https://degrowthuk.org/2025/08/01/renewables-carbon-and-the-energy-crisis/ ### Share this: * Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Article updated (note at the end) because I found errors in both the Guardian article and the original report.
See also the long Tim Parrique piece linked in a post here yesterday.

Decoupling …… again – degrowthUK
https://degrowthuk.org/2025/12/16/decoupling-again/

"Faced with economic stagnation the elites are panicking. Wild eyed in the control room, they thrash around seeking to fix the unfixable, pushing all the buttons, pulling all the levers, to no avail, just making things worse. They try the old mantra “growth”, repeated endlessly, and given a […]

"..the required actions to bring back high-income economies within planetary boundaries is very likely to contract their GDP. It is important to say it out loud because the implications for economic organisation are far reaching."

A response to Jonathan Aldred: On the tortuous relationship […]

"..the required actions to bring back high-income economies within planetary boundaries is very likely to contract their GDP. It is important to say it out loud because the implications for economic organisation are far reaching."

A response to Jonathan Aldred: On the tortuous relationship […]

The psychology of collapse and the solution, why the UK climate crisis feels ‘normal’ now Last in our series: politicians normalise disaster, people develop crisis fatigue – the solution: climate resilience that actually works

The psychology of collapse and the solution, why the UK climate crisis feels ‘normal’ now
https://northwestbylines.co.uk/environment/climate-change/psychology-climate-crisis/?fsp_sid=2201

I don't want to be alarmist, but ...

"Continued global heating could trigger climate tipping points, leading to a cascade of further tipping points and feedback loops, they said. This would lock the world into a new and hellish “hothouse Earth” climate.

At 3-4C, “the economy and society will […]

I've drafted a critical analysis of MMT. Not for publication yet but if you'd like to see it, DM me an email address, but I expect constructive feedback.
I summarise Keynesian and Marxist criticisms and add my own ecological ones

Decoupling …… again If you’ve been reading our material for long you’ll have seen previous articles about the claim that GDP growth can happen without increasing greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon) pollution: the decoupling thesis. Early work focused on debunking claims that were made without evidence. Later on, evidence for some decoupling was provided and we reviewed its implications. Briefly we questioned its scale, permanence, and the quality of the data underpinning it. Elsewhere we’ve focused on the other ills that GDP growth brings – pollution by other compounds, resource depletion, waste, and the devastation of communities and environments where the necessary extraction takes place. Last week another set of decoupling fans sallied forth. The Guardian covered it with the hyperbolic and inaccurate headline “Economic growth no longer linked to carbon emissions in most of the world, study finds”. In an article at our sister site, degrowthuk, I address that article and the report on which it is based. Among other things, I look at the detail of the emission reductions. In brief, the scale of the decoupling reported is too small to make a significant difference (global emissions continue to climb) and it is likely that greater emission reductions could have been made without the (actually sluggish) GDP growth in the decoupling countries. The article begins, “An article appeared in The Guardian on Thursday, December 11th, entitled “Economic growth no longer linked to carbon emissions in most of the world, study finds”. “The Guardian appears to have a policy of not linking the reports it cites. It is from a London-based NGO, Energy and Climate Analysis Unit (ECAU). The report lacks a section on study limitations and cites few references. Nor does it present more than a summary of the data. “The claim is bold but there are a number of problems with it. …….” READ ON at DegrowthUK. ### Share this: * Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Like Loading... ### _Related_

The article is a brave try, but greater familiarisation with #degrowth would have made it better.
Some weeks ago, the paper didn't publish my letter taking issue with their "don't worry, decoupling is happening" article. See my: https://steadystatemanchester.net/2025/12/16/decoupling-again/