Decoupling solves – empirics flow in favor AND degrowth is merely a distraction

This assumes that there cannot be absolute decoupling, yet we already see decoupling in many sectors thanks to efficiency gains. A bit of clarification between relative and absolute decoupling is needed here: relative decoupling is where there is a reduction in the inputs per unit of production, but there is still overall growth in inputs, while absolute decoupling is where a sector has continued to grow without an increase in inputs. We can see the latter — absolute decoupling — in US crop production, for example, which has increased even as agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, water, and crop acreage have declined or plateaued, with the decline in fertilizer use being particularly sharp. Corn acreage has been absolutely decoupled from corn production. American potato yields continue to increase, but the potato market is saturated, so potato production has plateaued, meaning that land is removed from production. US consumption of metals marched in lockstep with GDP until about the 1980s. Since then, consumption of important metals such as aluminum, nickel, copper, steel, and gold have plateaued or declined. (This takes into account imports and exports, so globalization and offshoring the problem to the developing world is not the reason for this.) Many degrowthers simply reject that absolute degrowth has happened, but this is simply denial of the facts. Some degrowthers, to their credit, accept that absolute degrowth is real but is happening too slowly and in not enough sectors. To those degrowthers, I say: “I completely agree! That’s why we need to focus on more economic planning and the policies required to speed up absolute decoupling and forget about this degrowth distraction!” If absolute decoupling is too slow to deal with climate change, what makes them think that convincing all the electorates and autocracies of the world that they need to abandon economic growth will be any faster?