Death Cult Degrowthers Want to Put Lipstick on a Pig

Premium Content

Larry Elliott over at The Guardian is out here peddling what can only be described as degrowth with a smiley face—like trying to market tofu as the next T-bone. In his article, Degrowth needs to solve its image problem for the sake of the planet, Elliott makes the case that the degrowth movement just needs a little PR refresh to be more palatable. As if convincing people to embrace economic collapse is just a matter of better slogans. Sure, Larry, that’s exactly what degrowth needs: a good spin doctor.

Degrowth, for the uninitiated, is all about forcing society to shrink economic activity, produce less, consume less, and basically live smaller. Proponents believe this will somehow reverse climate change and save us all from doom. But here’s the real joke: degrowthers think you’ll buy this nonsense if they slap some fresh paint on it. It’s like they’re trying to turn the same rancid stew into gourmet cuisine by adding a sprinkle of parsley.

Selling Misery as Salvation

Elliott’s entire piece is a blend of disaster-porn, wishful thinking, and eco-moralism. He claims we’re on a runaway train of global capitalism, hurling toward an apocalyptic climate breakdown. His solution? Pull the emergency brake on economic growth and accept less of, well, everything. If that’s not a pitch straight from the Ministry of Misery, I don’t know what is.

What’s especially rich is Elliott’s comparison of climate management to central banks handling inflation. “We need to deal with the climate effects of global capitalism the way we deal with inflation,” he writes​. This analogy is as absurd as it is arrogant. Central banks control interest rates; they don’t purposely tank the economy. Meanwhile, degrowth would have you believe that voluntarily slowing growth is somehow akin to strategic inflation control. It’s not. It’s economic hari-kari.

When “Less Is More” Means “You’re Getting Less”

Elliott tries to dress up degrowth as some noble sacrifice for the planet. He laments that BP recently decided to increase fossil fuel production instead of cutting it by 2030, claiming that this reflects the broader trend of businesses prioritizing profits over sustainability​. His point? Apparently, businesses should make less money and focus on making you less comfortable, all for the sake of a supposedly cooler planet.

It’s clear why degrowth doesn’t sell—because it’s awful. As Elliott notes, people in wealthy nations have already gotten a taste of what degrowth looks like since 2008, with sluggish growth and stagnant wages. The verdict? People hated it. But Larry thinks they just need a new sales pitch. Really? Try telling Americans to accept even more decline while elites jet around to climate summits to lecture us on “doing our part.” Spoiler alert: that dog won’t hunt​.

The Fantasy of “Good Growth”

Elliott trots out a tired trope: distinguishing “good growth” from “bad growth.” Good growth, he argues, includes spending on health, education, and the arts, while bad growth is all the stuff that’s supposedly killing the planet​. But who decides what’s good and what’s bad? In reality, all growth requires resources, energy, and human effort.

Degrowthers certainly don’t want less to be spent on health, education or the arts. Rather, these are sectors of the economy they want to see expand. They have work to do to show that it is possible to get rid of the bad growth without also jeopardising the good growth.

You can’t just cancel parts of the economy without causing collateral damage. Claiming we can trim the “bad” while keeping the “good” is like claiming you can only cut off the parts of the arm you don’t need. Try explaining that to someone whose job vanishes thanks to a degrowth policy.

This “good growth vs. bad growth” nonsense is just more lipstick on the pig. No matter how much eco-theorists try to spin it, they’re still pushing austerity and poverty as the moral high ground. And let’s be clear: that’s what degrowth is—self-inflicted poverty sold as virtue.

Poor Nations Aren’t Buying It

Let’s talk about how the rest of the world views this nonsense. Elliott acknowledges, albeit reluctantly, that degrowth is a non-starter in the Global South​.

Yet, there is a third problem – the biggest of all – which is that degrowth has no resonance in low- and middle-income countries, where governments see by far the biggest policy challenge to be eradicating poverty.

Why? Because these nations have real problems, like poverty, hunger, and the need for clean water—not the manufactured crisis of the latest climate apocalypse prediction. Elliott even cites a World Bank report that says lifting the 700 million people currently living on less than $2.15 a day out of extreme poverty wouldn’t make a dent in emissions​.

Elliott’s admission here is telling. He knows that the real battle for humanity isn’t in reducing CO2 levels; it’s in lifting people out of grinding poverty. Yet, the degrowthers want these same nations to curb their ambitions for prosperity so that Western eco-zealots can feel morally superior about “saving the planet.” It’s the height of elitism to ask someone in Bangladesh to accept less progress so that Greta Thunberg can rest easy in her carbon-neutral yurt.

Doughnut Economics, or: How to Confuse the Masses

Elliott then invokes the so-called “Doughnut Economics” of Kate Raworth, a model that supposedly balances human needs with planetary boundaries. He claims this approach makes more sense than raw degrowth, offering a “sellable” version of economic contraction​. But like every other socialist fantasy, Doughnut Economics falls apart under scrutiny. It’s built on the same misguided idea that a central authority can ration resources and somehow improve lives.

To make matters worse, Raworth’s doughnut is nothing but a rebranding of the same stale bread of degrowth. It’s a policy built to manage decline, not prosperity. It’s socialism with a greener coat of paint—a half-baked theory that insists you should be satisfied with less, all while the eco-elites continue living large.

The Death Cult of Degrowth

Elliott inadvertently admits that degrowth’s appeal is limited to the self-loathing elites of the West, who feel guilty about their own success.

Critiques of the status quo who come from the de-growth and post-growth movements have so far had little purchase on the political debate.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to tighten our belts, lower our expectations, and be grateful for less​. Degrowth is not a movement of the people; it’s a death cult for the privileged, designed by academics who see themselves as enlightened saviors. It’s the ultimate in virtue signaling—a policy that sacrifices the many for the moral satisfaction of a few.

Conclusion: Calling Out the Hypocrisy

Elliott’s call for better marketing of degrowth is an insult to intelligence. You can’t make degrowth attractive because it’s fundamentally unattractive. It’s a policy of less wealth, fewer choices, and diminished quality of life. It’s not about saving the planet; it’s about controlling people. The only reason degrowthers need better PR is that their ideas are awful.

Here’s the truth: real solutions come from innovation, growth, and human ingenuity—not from punitive economic contraction. Instead of putting lipstick on a pig, Elliott and his fellow degrowthers should try doing something that works. But that’s unlikely, because they’re not interested in fixing anything; they just want you to accept less while they pat themselves on the back for their “noble sacrifice.”

The bottom line? Degrowth isn’t the solution. It’s the problem. So, Larry, keep your lipstick. The pig is still a pig.

H/T strativarius