@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 1. About the question of dematerialization. Smith is using data on domestic material consumption (DMC), which does not account for the material impact of extraction & production that has been offshored since 1980.
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 2. What happens when we *do* account for the footprint of imports? We see that the US economy is not dematerializing at all. In fact, it has been getting *more* materially intensive. Here is a graph of real GDP and total raw material consumption in the US since 1990. 
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 3. The same is true in other rich countries. Not only the USA, but also the EU and the OECD have experienced zero dematerialization. (MF here is Material Footprint, which is the same as RMC in the above graph). Source: pnas.org/content/112/20…
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 4. We can see the same pattern playing out in the world economy as a whole. Global resource use hasn't been slowing down at all; in fact it has been *accelerating* since 2000, to the point of *outstripping* the pace of GDP growth.
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 5. The bottom line is that Smith's claims about dematerialization are not supported by the empirical data. This question has been rigorously examined in the academic literature. E.g.: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 6. About GDP/CO2 decoupling… we all know this is happening in some rich nations. The question is, can we reduce emissions fast enough to stay within safe carbon budgets while still growing GDP at existing rates? We have addressed that question here: jasonhickel.org/s/Hickel-and-K…
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 7. For the dematerialization argument, Smith relies heavily on a new book titled "More From Less". I have critiqued its claims here:
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 8. Here is his response, with my response to his response at following:
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 9. About the Environmental Kuznets Curve, this theory has been debunked for a long time. It holds for certain local pollutants, but it does not hold for resource use and energy use. If it did, rich nations would have the lowest resource use. But exactly the opposite is true.
@AndrewM_Fischer @Noahpinion @bopinion 10. Finally, the idea that *global* economic growth is the only way to end poverty and deliver good lives for all is not true. We can end poverty right now, without aggregate growth, by distributing existing income more fairly. Also, some useful data here: academia.edu/37948082/Is_it…
