Is Green Growth Possible? Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis Abstract The concept of green growth has become a dominant policy response to climate change and ecological breakdown. Green growth theory claims that continued economic expansion is compatible with our planet's ecology, as technological change and substitution will allow us to absolutely decouple GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions. This claim is now assumed in national and international policy, including in the Sustainable Development Goals. However, empirical evidence on resource use and carbon emissions does not support green growth theory. Examining relevant studies on historical trends and model-based projections, we find that: (1) there is no empirical evidence that absolute decoupling from resource use can be achieved on a global scale against a background of continued economic growth, and (2) absolute decoupling from carbon emissions is highly unlikely to be achieved at a rate rapid enough to prevent global warming over 1.5°C or 2°C, even under optimistic policy conditions. We conclude that green growth is likely to be a misguided objective, and that policymakers need to look toward alternative strategies. Green growth theory is now promoted by leading multilateral organizations and is assumed in national and international policy. It rests on the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions is feasible. This review paper examines this assumption, and tests it against extant empirical evidence. We ask: how do international organizations define green growth? Does the theory of green growth (and specifically, the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from material throughput and carbon emissions can be accomplished at a sufficiently rapid rate) withstand scrutiny in light of existing data and model-based projections? And if not, what are the implications for policy? The three major institutional proponents of green growth theory at the international level are the OECD, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Bank. Each published flagship reports on green growth around the time of the Rio+20 Conference. The OECD defines green growth as 'fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies'. The World Bank defines it as 'economic growth that is efficient in its use of natural resources, clean in that it minimizes pollution and environmental impacts, and resilient in that it accounts for natural hazards and the role of environmental management and natural capital in preventing physical disasters'. UNEP defines green growth as one that simultaneously grows income and improves human well-being 'while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities'. The three institutions agree however on the mechanism for achieving green growth. The promise is that technological change and substitution will improve the ecological efficiency of the economy, and that governments can speed this process with the right regulations and incentives. But they differ in the clarity of their claims. The World Bank does not ask whether policy-driven innovations will suffice to reduce environmental impact. The OECD, for its part, clarifies that green growth is onlyIs Green Growth Possible? Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis Abstract The concept of green growth has become a dominant policy response to climate change and ecological breakdown. Green growth theory claims that continued economic expansion is compatible with our planet's ecology, as technological change and substitution will allow us to absolutely decouple GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions. This claim is now assumed in national and international policy, including in the Sustainable Development Goals. However, empirical evidence on resource use and carbon emissions does not support green growth theory. Examining relevant studies on historical trends and model-based projections, we find that: (1) there is no empirical evidence that absolute decoupling from resource use can be achieved on a global scale against a background of continued economic growth, and (2) absolute decoupling from carbon emissions is highly unlikely to be achieved at a rate rapid enough to prevent global warming over 1.5°C or 2°C, even under optimistic policy conditions. We conclude that green growth is likely to be a misguided objective, and that policymakers need to look toward alternative strategies. Green growth theory is now promoted by leading multilateral organizations and is assumed in national and international policy. It rests on the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from resource use and carbon emissions is feasible. This review paper examines this assumption, and tests it against extant empirical evidence. We ask: how do international organizations define green growth? Does the theory of green growth (and specifically, the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from material throughput and carbon emissions can be accomplished at a sufficiently rapid rate) withstand scrutiny in light of existing data and model-based projections? And if not, what are the implications for policy? The three major institutional proponents of green growth theory at the international level are the OECD, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Bank. Each published flagship reports on green growth around the time of the Rio+20 Conference. The OECD defines green growth as 'fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies'. The World Bank defines it as 'economic growth that is efficient in its use of natural resources, clean in that it minimizes pollution and environmental impacts, and resilient in that it accounts for natural hazards and the role of environmental management and natural capital in preventing physical disasters'. UNEP defines green growth as one that simultaneously grows income and improves human well-being 'while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities'. The three institutions agree however on the mechanism for achieving green growth. The promise is that technological change and substitution will improve the ecological efficiency of the economy, and that governments can speed this process with the right regulations and incentives. But they differ in the clarity of their claims. The World Bank does not ask whether policy-driven innovations will suffice to reduce environmental impact. The OECD, for its part, clarifies that green growth is only