Does economic growth have to mean rising emissions?

For decades, we’ve been told there’s an awkward trade-off: grow the economy or cut emissions – pick one. It’s a neat story. It’s also increasingly out of date.

The uncomfortable truth for that old argument is this: several countries are already growing their economies while cutting emissions. Not hypothetically. Not on a whiteboard. In the real world.

The old assumption (and why it stuck)

Historically, growth did mean more emissions. Industrialisation burned coal, oil powered transport, and cheap energy meant dirty energy. GDP and carbon rose together, so the idea became baked in: prosperity equals pollution.

But that logic assumes three things:

1. Energy must come from fossil fuels

2. Efficiency improvements are marginal

3. Consumption can’t change

None of those assumptions still hold.

What “decoupling” actually looks like

Economists talk about decoupling – separating economic growth from emissions. There are two flavours:

• Relative decoupling: emissions grow more slowly than GDP

• Absolute decoupling: GDP rises while emissions fall

It’s the second one that matters. And it is happening.

Countries like United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark have cut territorial emissions significantly over the past couple of decades while their economies continued to expand.

Not perfectly. Not evenly. But clearly enough to break the myth.

So how do you grow without growing emissions?

It isn’t magic. It’s policy, technology, and priorities.

1. Clean power
Once electricity is low-carbon, everything that runs on electricity gets cleaner by default – transport, heating, industry.

2. Efficiency
Insulating homes, modern motors, smarter logistics and better building design often save money while cutting emissions. This is the low-hanging fruit we still keep walking past.

3. Electrification
Electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric rail – they all move energy demand away from fossil fuels and into systems that can be decarbonised centrally.

4. Different kinds of growth
Growth doesn’t have to mean “more stuff”. Services, digital industries, repair, education, healthcare and creative sectors are far less carbon-intensive than steel, cement and throwaway consumer goods.

The awkward counter-argument

Critics rightly point out a problem: outsourcing emissions. Some rich countries cut emissions at home while importing carbon-heavy goods from elsewhere.

That’s a fair challenge – and one reason consumption-based accounting matters. But even when imports are included, the idea that emissions must rise with growth still doesn’t hold universally.

It just means policy has to follow the supply chain, not stop at the border.

Growth isn’t the enemy – inertia is

Rising emissions aren’t inevitable. What is inevitable is that emissions rise if countries choose not to change how they grow.

Clinging to fossil fuels, under-insulating homes, designing cities around cars, and rewarding wasteful consumption isn’t “economic realism”. It’s a failure of imagination – and often of political courage.

The real question isn’t “Can we grow without rising emissions?”
It’s “Why are some governments still pretending we can’t?”