By AnthroEvolve Cooperative

Periodically, a viral wave insists that “green growth” is the fix for our consumer culture and mounting waste crisis.

Barbara Williams calls it what it is: a fairy tale for adults who’d rather dodge the numbers than deal with reality.

The details change, but the core message is always the same: you cannot have endless economic expansion on a finite planet and expect the biosphere to cooperate.

That claim is not ideological. It is arithmetic.

For decades, economists and policymakers have promised that we can “decouple” GDP from environmental damage, that efficiency and innovation will let us grow the economy while shrinking our footprint. Yet the evidence is sobering. Reviews of hundreds of studies on “decoupling” show that while there are pockets of relative decoupling, the kind of deep, rapid, absolute decoupling required to keep us within planetary boundaries is rare to nonexistent, especially when you count all materials and trade, not just territorial CO₂ emissions.

Meanwhile, humanity as a whole has been in ecological overshoot since the early 1970s. In 2025, Earth Overshoot Day falls on July 24, the date when we have effectively used up a full year’s worth of regenerative capacity and start eating into the future. Current estimates suggest we are demanding roughly 70 to 80 percent more than ecosystems can renew in a year.

So no, endless growth is not sustainable. But to understand how we got here – and how our everyday purchases can become part of the antidote – we have to go back to a very explicit design choice.

Victor Lebow and the invention of hyper-consumerism

In 1955, retail analyst Victor Lebow published an article in the Journal of Retailing that reads today like a manifesto for the consumer society. He argued that, given the enormous productive capacity of postwar industry, the United States needed a cultural transformation:

Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, and that we seek our spiritual and ego satisfaction in consumption. We need things “consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.”

Lebow was not describing a side effect. He was prescribing a strategy: if production capacity is huge, then demand must be manufactured to match it. That meant:

• Turning social status into a function of what we buy
• Shortening product life cycles
• Normalizing constant replacement as a patriotic and personal duty

Histories of consumer culture link exactly this period with the institutionalization of mass advertising, the suburban retail boom, and the idea that the “good life” is essentially a shopping list.

In other words, the modern economy did not accidentally drift toward consumerism. It was deliberately pointed there.

From consumerism to functional obsolescence

Once growth is built on ever-expanding consumption, the next step is obvious. If products last too long, demand slows. The solution is not to build objects that serve us for a lifetime, but objects that must be repeatedly replaced.

Researchers who study obsolescence in product design distinguish several forms: technical obsolescence (the thing breaks), aesthetic or psychological obsolescence (it feels “outdated” even if it works), and functional or relative obsolescence, where the item is still working but no longer fits shifting standards, compatibility, or perceived needs.

Studies of household appliances, electronics, and fast fashion show how this plays out in practice:

• Appliances that are technically repairable but made with proprietary parts and sealed designs that make repair uneconomical
• Software and accessories that stop supporting older hardware even when the hardware itself is fine
• Trends and marketing cycles that frame perfectly functional items as embarrassing or obsolete

One study of discarded household appliances in the UK found that many products were thrown away long before the end of their potential technical life, often because repairing them was more expensive or inconvenient than buying new.

Add to that a barely regulated market in extended warranties and service contracts that quietly normalizes failure as a business model, and you have a system where obsolescence is not a bug, it is a feature.

So when we talk about “green growth” within this architecture, we are not just adding solar panels and EVs. We are trying to green a machine whose operating logic depends on churn.

Efficiency is not enough: Jevons paradox and the rebound problem

Even when we genuinely improve efficiency, we run into another structural trap: Jevons paradox.

In the 19th century, economist William Stanley Jevons noticed that improvements in coal efficiency in steam engines did not reduce coal consumption. They increased it. Making coal use cheaper led to more applications, more engines, and more total coal burned.

Modern analyses generalize this as the rebound effect:

• Make engines more fuel-efficient and driving becomes cheaper, which often increases total kilometers driven.
• Make lighting dramatically more efficient and cheap, and we respond by lighting more surfaces, streets, and screens.
• Make digital services and AI more efficient, and total use and data center load can still soar.

At the micro level, an individual efficient appliance may use less energy. But at the macro level, increased efficiency often lowers effective costs, stimulates new demand, and accelerates economic growth, which pulls resource use back up.

That does not mean efficiency is pointless. It means efficiency without sufficiency and limits risks accelerating the very overshoot it was meant to prevent.

The green growth promise vs the degrowth reality check

“Green growth” is the idea that we can keep GDP rising while shrinking material and energy use fast enough to meet climate and ecological targets. For this to be true, rich countries would need to achieve rapid, sustained absolute decoupling: total environmental impact falling in absolute terms while GDP keeps climbing.

Systematic reviews of the evidence paint a grim picture. Studies looking at materials, energy, and emissions find:

• Relative decoupling is common in some indicators and regions
• Short periods of absolute decoupling can occur, often during recessions or with narrow scopes
• There is no empirical evidence of absolute decoupling at the global scale at rates consistent with staying below 1.5–2°C while continuing business-as-usual growth, especially when you include all resource use and outsourced production.

Ecological economists like Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis conclude bluntly that while some decoupling is technically possible, it is extremely unlikely to be fast and deep enough to reconcile continued high GDP growth with ecological stability. Green growth, as a sole strategy, does not match the data.

Which brings us back to the viral post: we need degrowth, not as punishment, but as systems correction. Degrowth here means planned downscaling of energy and material throughput in rich economies, while centering human wellbeing, equity, and ecological stability.

So where does that leave everyday people who still need shoes, phones, and winter coats?

We still need products. The question is which ones, how many, and under what conditions.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: rejecting the fairy tale of green growth does not mean rejecting medicine, shelter, decent clothing, or tools. A modern, dignified life will always require some level of material throughput.

The work, then, is not pure abstinence. It is discrimination in the best sense of the word: learning to distinguish between what is necessary, what is joyful, and what is simply a symptom of Lebow’s ritualized consumption.

There are at least three levers here:

1. Buy fewer things, more slowly.
   Minimalism is not about aesthetic emptiness. It is about reducing the number of objects that must be produced, shipped, and disposed of in the first place.
2. When you do buy, choose the “least-worst” options.
   No product is impact-free. But some are significantly less destructive than others: made from safer materials, designed for longevity and repair, and produced in supply chains that respect human rights.
3. Shift the ownership model.
   Buying from cooperatives and community-owned enterprises keeps more of the value circulating locally and aligns incentives away from pure volume expansion and toward member wellbeing.

The hidden violence in our supply chains

One reason I built a marketplace like AnthroEvolve is because the world of “normal” products has a quiet shadow most people never see: child and forced labor.

Joint estimates from the International Labour Organization and UNICEF show that in 2024 about 138 million children were still engaged in child labor, with roughly 54 million involved in hazardous work that threatens their health and safety.

These children are embedded in the global supply chains that feed our wardrobes, our gadgets, and often even our food. Agriculture alone accounts for about 60 percent of all child labor globally, but manufacturing, mining, and informal sectors remain deeply implicated.

So when we talk about “green” products, we cannot stop at carbon or plastic. A truly “least-worst” product also needs to be free from child and forced labor, with transparent, audited supply chains and living-wage commitments wherever possible.

On my Eco-Musings page at AnthroEvolve, I go deeper into how pervasive these abuses still are and why consumer awareness is only the first step. But awareness does matter. It changes how we feel when we pick an item up. It moves the purchase from “cute” to “consequence-aware”.

Cooperatives as a quiet revolution in where money goes

There is another layer that rarely makes it into mainstream “sustainable shopping” conversations: who owns the platform.

If we buy an ethically-made product through a conventional corporation, some value travels back up to shareholders who may have no connection to the community or the mission. When we buy through cooperatives - whether consumer, worker, or multi-stakeholder - the surplus can be returned to members, reinvested locally, or used to deepen the social and ecological mission.

Cooperatives are not automatically perfect, but their structure changes the story:

• Members, not external investors, have governance rights
• Surplus is shared according to patronage rather than capital alone
• There is a built-in incentive to prioritize long-term community resilience over short-term growth at any cost

In a world where we are already consuming 1.8 Earths worth of capacity, using our purchases to strengthen cooperative, regenerative, community-owned ecosystems is one way to turn necessary consumption into a multiplier for local wellbeing instead of a siphon.

Degrowth in practice: what an ordinary person can do

If degrowth sounds abstract, here is what it can look like in an ordinary week:

• Choosing not to buy three cheap fashion items and instead saving for one durable, ethically sourced garment
• Repairing a phone, jacket, or appliance instead of replacing it at the first inconvenience
• Swapping or borrowing items that are rarely used instead of each household owning everything
• When you do buy new, preferring companies that:
• Disclose their supply chains
• Screen for child and forced labor
• Use safer materials and designs that extend product life
• Operate as cooperatives or commit to community wealth-building

This is not individual virtue as a substitute for systemic change. It is individual and collective action aligned with the systemic change we need.

Policy must do its part: banning planned obsolescence, enforcing right-to-repair, phasing out fossil fuels, protecting workers and children, and reorienting metrics of success away from GDP toward wellbeing. But those policies are easier to pass when there is a visible culture already living as if different values are possible.

A happier planet, happier communities

Endless growth in throughput is incompatible with a living planet. The math is simple. The evidence is extensive. Clinging to “green growth” as a silver bullet delays the deeper transformation that is already overdue.

Yet rejecting that illusion does not mean rejecting joy, beauty, or comfort. It means:

• Letting go of the story that we are what we consume
• Designing products and systems that aim for enough, not “ever more”
• Protecting children and workers along the supply chain, not treating them as invisible costs
• Keeping more of our money circulating in cooperative, community-rooted structures

When we pair a more minimalist, sufficiency-centered lifestyle with “least-worst” purchases and cooperative economics, every transaction becomes a small vote for a different future.

We may not be able to buy our way out of overshoot. But we can stop buying into the story that got us here, and start funding the one that might actually let us stay.

Sources:

Lebow, Victor (1955). Price Competition in 1955. Journal of Retailing.
Reprinted PDF with the famous “our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life…” passage.
Link: https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Lebow.pdf

Global Footprint Network (2025). Press Release: Earth Overshoot Day 2025.
Explains Earth Overshoot Day, states that in 2025 humanity is using nature about 1.8 times faster than ecosystems can regenerate.
Link: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/press-release-2025-english/

Global Footprint Network (n.d.). Earth Overshoot Day – Overview.
General explanation of overshoot, multiple “Earths” metric, and methodology.
Link: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/earth-overshoot-day/

Hickel, Jason & Kallis, Giorgos (2019). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486.
Foundational ecological economics paper reviewing the evidence for decoupling GDP from environmental impact and arguing that green growth is unlikely at required scales.
Link: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
(Open copy): https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/HickelandKallis-IsGreenGrowthPossible.pdf

Vogel, J. et al. (2023). Decoupling trends of GDP and environmental impact in high-income countries. The Lancet Planetary Health.
Empirical analysis of decoupling claims in high-income countries; useful for supporting the “no robust evidence of sufficient absolute decoupling” point.
Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00174-2/fulltext

Wikipedia / Summary entry. Jevons Paradox.
Accessible overview of Jevons paradox and the rebound effect in energy efficiency (with references to primary literature).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Schleich, J. et al. (2014). A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient lighting. Energy Policy, 72, 35–42.
Quantifies rebound effects for lighting; good evidence for “efficiency can drive more usage” arguments.
Link (abstract): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002638

Steinhurst, W., Knight, P., & Schultz, M. (2011). The Jevons Paradox and Energy Efficiency: A Brief Overview. Synapse Energy Economics.
Clear policy-oriented summary of rebound effects and why efficiency alone doesn’t guarantee lower total energy use.
Link: https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2011-02.33.Jevons-Paradox-and-Energy-Efficiency.11-006.pdf

Laitala, Kirsi, Klepp, Ingun Grimstad, & Henry, Beverley (2021). Increasing repair of household appliances, mobile phones and clothing: Experiences from Norwegian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296.
Shows how low prices, design, and market structures encourage replacement over repair, backing your discussion of functional/relative obsolescence.
Link (abstract): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620353944

Ingenia (Royal Academy of Engineering) (2021). Repair or replace – what drives a circular economy?
Explores consumer behaviour and industry patterns around repair vs replacement of appliances; supports claims about early replacement and upgrade culture.
Link: https://www.ingenia.org.uk/articles/repair-or-replace-what-drives-a-circular-economy/

UNICEF (2025). Child labour – UNICEF DATA.
Latest global overview; notes that child labour still affects nearly 138 million children, with details on sectors and regional patterns.
Link: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/child-labour/

ILO & UNICEF (2025). Joint report on progress towards eliminating child labour (press coverage summaries).
Example news summary of the joint report stating that around 138 million children are still in child labour and about 54 million in hazardous work in 2024.
Link (news summary): https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/138-million-child-laborers-in-2024-world-misses-target-to-eliminate-child-labour-by-2025-ilo-unicef-report/articleshow/121782572.cms

UNICEF & ILO (2021). Child labour rises to 160 million – first increase in two decades.
Press release and report on global child labour trends, useful for historical context and showing how stubborn the problem is.
Link: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/child-labour-rises-160-million-first-increase-two-decades

Stoner, D. et al. (2024). Consumerism: Is more really better?
Short public-facing article that also quotes Victor Lebow’s 1955 line on making consumption our way of life; nice secondary source that reinforces the Lebow framing.
Link: https://eriebenedictines.org/news-stories.html/article/2024/03/25/consumerism-is-more-really-better-