This is very interesting:

Even the original 1972 report “on the exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources”, the Club of Rome does not speak of “Degrowth” but of “The Limits to Growth”. A fundamental difference… as these authors probably knew only too well that since the 1950 Treaty of Detroit growth was linked to War on Poverty: the rise of millions of people in the US and Europe out of dire poverty. Economic growth, by means of significant levels of employment and income redistribution, is highly correlated with health and wellbeing indicators, such as life expectancy and education. Historian Ian Morris goes even a step further and identifies sufficient levels of growth as being one of the indicating factors that prevent societal collapse during periods of turmoil and duress.

I always thought that Limits to Growth and Erhlich’s Population Bomb were more political than scientific. Good for Ian Morris as the indications are without growth, for most, there will be societal collapse or decay. (Do you have a citation for Morris?) This we saw in Boston when forced bussing saw a white flight drop in population.

Shame on McDonough’s simplistic linear thinking: “Under this dictatorship of ECOLOGISM, we see more codes and standardisation, more regulation that stunts [prevent] economic growth and incentive, more limiting of consumer choices.

It's not more or less regulation, it’s responsible regulations that prevent businesses from cutting corners and not being transparent. There is no connection between economic growth and consumer choice – that’s just political slight of hand to get consumers to oppose regulation. Standard Oil and AT&T had plenty of growth without choice. (Don’t forget protecting workers.)

Governments should serve the people and regulate businesses in the interests of people. Businesses first demanded government subsidies claiming their benefits would trickle down to benefit all. Now that we know that is false – bounty went into hedge funds and the banks collapsed instead. Now businesses want more so that consumers will have more choices and feed the global problem of too much consumption.