A growing economy needs to produce more.  If it can squeeze greater production out of less energy, that's still growth.

You can twist the figures around and make it seem like we live in a golden age where more GDP output occurs with less energy, and that would be true.

But more GDP output with less energy is not the same thing as using less energy. There has not been a single case in my lifetime where the economy has expanded without energy consumption expanding. I expect this is a truism dating back to the dawn of time... some laws simply can not be refuted. It takes energy to produce; the more you produce, the more energy you utilize.

It doesn't matter how efficient we become - at least not in the short term, because we can't become highly efficient overnight - increased economic growth will require more energy.

Now... off what baseline are we measuring? I suggest we've nothing to pick from, except when we reach peak production world wide, we'll then have a convenient measuring post i.e. when world wide economies next start growing, post-peak, we'll have been successful in the transition.

Clearly if the peak is tomorrow, this will be a long time coming. If the peak is a decade or two away, we've got a chance to mitigate potential world wide disaster.

There's no point in putting a fine point on definitions when we have decades of economic output to look at and in every case where economic expansion ruled, energy use went up. Turning that ship around will not happen over night; I question if it can even happen in a decade.

But more GDP output with less energy is not the same thing as using less energy.
True.  However, energy/$GNP has been on a downward slide for many decades.  If the efficiency curve rises at the same or greater rate while economic growth slows, we could easily have absolute energy consumption decline during (slow) growth.

Note that only some kinds of energy are in short supply at the moment, and we can raise efficiency of some things easily.  We can boost the amount of e.g. wind power with a relatively short lead time, freeing coal and gas for other uses.  We can insulate and cut heating energy with no loss in utility.  We can stop buying Explorers and Tacomas and buy Focuses and Civics instead; at a 17-year vehicle lifespan and a bias of miles driven toward newer vehicles, doubling fleet MPG means cutting motor fuel use by perhaps 4% per year.

There has not been a single case in my lifetime where the economy has expanded without energy consumption expanding.
Oil is the biggie here; consider the amount of low-hanging fruit in transportation.
It doesn't matter how efficient we become - at least not in the short term, because we can't become highly efficient overnight - increased economic growth will require more energy.
Consider my concept, then:  instead of burning gasoline in engines at 17% efficiency, build cars as plug-in hybrids.  Efficiency under engine power goes up by a third, and 80% of their driving is done on grid power; direct fuel consumption falls by 85%.  The remaining energy (about the same 80%, due to losses) is met by burning oil in 70% combined-cycle powerplants at 55% efficiency and 30% simple-cycle gas turbine powerplants at 40% efficiency.  Total relative oil consumption is:
  • 15% of baseline used directly.
  • 17.3% in the CC plants.
  • 10.6% in the simple-cycle plants.
Total:  42.9% of baseline.  If you get 30% of the additional grid power from non-petroleum sources like coal, wind or solar, this falls to 34.5%.

Things look almost absurdly rosy if you postulate cogenerating furnaces to generate electricity during the heating season.  There are a lot of things we could do that we are not.  Yet.

Embarking on a plan like this would lead directly to economic growth because the money that would have gone to the oil-producing countries would go instead to the battery makers, gas-turbine manufacturers, and other uses inside the industrialized countries (including our own).

EP, there are plenty of potential solutions out there, but, so far, seemingly, no potential leaders to get the ball running.

Solutions will only be worked on if a problem is perceived to be there, and I'm not convinced that the political leadership around the world is convinced that we face now, or in the next X years, anything more than a speed bump.

People need to feel more pain before they will really demand action; after all, most everyone dumped their Mazda's for Ford Explorers and big vans over the past 30 years... ;-)