Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Feasible alternatives to green growth


Climate change and increasing income inequality have emerged as twin threats to contemporary standards of living, peace and democracy. These two problems are usually tackled separately in the policy agenda. A new breed of radical proposals have been advanced to manage a fair low-carbon transition. In this spirit, we develop a dynamic macrosimulation model to investigate the long-term effects of three scenarios: green growth, policies for social equity, and degrowth. The green growth scenario, based on technological progress and environmental policies, achieves a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at the cost of increasing income inequality and unemployment. The policies for social equity scenario adds direct labour market interventions that result in an environmental performance similar to green growth while improving social conditions at the cost of increasing public deficit. The degrowth scenario further adds a reduction in consumption and exports, and achieves a greater reduction in emissions and inequality with higher public deficit, despite the introduction of a wealth tax. We argue that new radical social policies can combine social prosperity and low-carbon emissions and are economically and politically feasible.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Macroview.
Fig. 2: Scenario analysis: GHG emissions and income inequality.
Fig. 3: Scenario analysis: socioeconomic indicators.

Data availability

The initial data and the simulation outcomes of the model that support the findings of this study are available from Zenodo at Source Data for Figs. 2 and 3 are provided as Source Data files.

Code availability

The EUROGREEN model was developed in Vensim DSS. The code for the model can be viewed at


  1. 1.

    Obama, B. The irreversible momentum of clean energy. Science 355, 126–129 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Towards Green Growth? Tracking Progress (OECD Publishing, 2015).

  3. 3.

    Towards Green Growth: a Summary for Policy Makers (OECD Publishing, 2011).

  4. 4.

    Jackson, T. & Victor, P. A. Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science 366, 950–951 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6271–6276 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dakos, V. et al. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 14308–14312 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Scheffer, M. et al. Anticipating critical transitions. Science 338, 344–348 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jaimovich, N. & Siu, H. E. Job Polarization and Jobless Recoveries Working Paper No. 18334 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018).

  12. 12.

    H.Res.109—Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal (US Congress, 2019).

  13. 13.

    Pollin, R. De-growth vs a green new deal. New Left Rev. 112, 5–25 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Schor, J. B. & Jorgenson, A. K. Is it too late for growth? Rev. Rad. Pol. Econ. 51, 320–329 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kallis, G. Degrowth (Columbia Univ. Press, 2018).

  16. 16.

    Hickel, J. & Kallis, G. Is green growth possible? New Pol. Econ. (2019).

  17. 17.

    Jackson, T. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Routledge, 2009).

  18. 18.

    Jones, C. I. & Klenow, P. J. Beyond GDP? Welfare across countries and time. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 2426–2457 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Scarrow, R. Work and degrowth. Nat. Sustain. 1, 159 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hardt, L. & O’Neill, D. W. Ecological macroeconomic models: assessing current developments. Ecol. Econ. 134, 198–211 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Boyce, J. K. Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol. Econ. 11, 169–178 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ravallion, M., Heil, M. & Jalan, J. Carbon emissions and income inequality. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 52, 651–669 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hallegatte, S. & Rozenberg, J. Climate change through a poverty lens. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 250–256 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Burke, M. Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9808–9813 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E. & Laranja, M. Reconceptualising the policy mix for innovation. Res. Pol. 40, 702–713 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fremstad, A. & Paul, M. The impact of a carbon tax on inequality. Ecol. Econ. 163, 88–97 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jackson, T. & Victor, P. A. Productivity and work in the new economy—some theoretical reflections and empirical tests. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1, 101–108 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Godin, A. Guaranteed Green Jobs: Sustainable Full Employment Working Paper No. 722 (Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, 2012).

  29. 29.

    Garbinti, B., Goupille-Lebret, J. & Piketty, T. Income inequality in France, 1900–2014: evidence from Distributional National Accounts (DINA). J. Public Econ. 162, 63–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Green Paper—a 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies. Communication from the Commission 169 (European Commission, 2013).

  31. 31.

    Spash, C. L. The future post-growth society. Dev. Change 46, 366–380 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Piketty, T. Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right: Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict Working Paper 7 (World Inequality Lab, 2018).

  33. 33.

    Caverzasi, E. & Godin, A. Post-Keynesian stock-flow-consistent modelling: a survey. Cambridge J. Econ. 39, 157–187 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bovari, E., Giraud, G. & McIsaac, F. Coping with collapse: a stock-flow consistent monetary macrodynamics of global warming. Ecol. Econ. 147, 383–398 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Jackson, T. & Victor, P. A. Does credit create a growth imperative? A quasi-stationary economy with interest-bearing debt. Ecol. Econ. 120, 32–48 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Timmer, M. P., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R. & de Vries, G. J. An illustrated user guide to the World Input-Output Database: the Case of Global Automotive Production. Rev. Int. Econ. 23, 575–605 (2015).

  37. 37.

    Lavoie, M. Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).

  38. 38.

    Satchell, P. Innovation and Automation (Routledge, 2018).

  39. 39.

    Goos, M., Manning, A. & Salomons, A. Explaining job polarization: routine-biased technological change and offshoring. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 2509–2526 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Autor, D. H., Dorn, D. & Hanson, G. H. Untangling trade and technology: evidence from local labour markets. Econ. J. 125, 621–646 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Petrongolo, B. & Pissarides, C. A. The ins and outs of European unemployment. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 256–262 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mouw, T. & Kalleberg, A. L. Occupations and the structure of wage inequality in the United States, 1980s to 2000s. Am. Soc. Rev. 75, 402–431 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Schwellnus, C., Kappeler, A. & Pionnier, P.-A. Decoupling of Wages from Productivity OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1373 (OECD Publishing, 2017).

  44. 44.

    Alcott, B., Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K. & Polimeni, J. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements (Routledge, 2012).

  45. 45.

    The Next Production Revolution: Implications for Governments and Business (OECD Publishing, 2017).

  46. 46.

    Askenazy, P. Working time regulation in France from 1996 to 2012. Cambridge J. Econ. 37, 323–347 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Fitzgerald, J. B., Schor, J. B. & Jorgenson, A. K. Working hours and carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, 2007–2013. Soc. Forces 96, 1851–1874 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Schor, J. & White, K. E. Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth (Penguin Press, 2010).

  49. 49.

    Dietzenbacher, E. et al. Input–output analysis: the next 25 years. Econ. Syst. Res. 25, 369–389 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    A Clean Planet for All - A European Strategic Long-term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy Communication from the Commission 773 (European Commission, 2018).

Download references


This research was commissioned by B. Eickhout, P. Lamberts, F. Marcellesi and T. Reintke (members of parliament at the GreensEFA Group at the European Parliament). We thank all of them, as well as C. Cattaneo, F. Demaria, O. Derruine, E. Giuliani, P. Guarnieri, G. Kallis, P. Manfredi and L. Piccinini for discussions and suggestions. We also thank the participants at the 6th International Degrowth Conference, held in Malmö, and at the Post-Growth Conference, held at the European Parliament. This research would not have been finalized without funding under the LOCOMOTION project, within the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 821105.

Author information




S.D. and K.D. initiated this project and developed an initial version of the model. S.D., A.C. and T.D. developed the final version of the model, selected and programmed the individual policies and policy mixes, performed the simulation and wrote the manuscript. A.C. created Fig. 1 and T.D. created Figs. 2 and 3. All authors contributed to the Supplementary Information.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone D’Alessandro.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, results, Figs. 1–15, Tables 1–21 and references.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Data from our simulation used to produce figure 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Data from our simulation used to produce figure 3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Alessandro, S., Cieplinski, A., Distefano, T. et al. Feasible alternatives to green growth. Nat Sustain 3, 329–335 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing