I don't think you have this part quite right.

"The model has no overall growth but economic activity still takes place through the flow of energy and materials. More jobs would be created in reuse and recycling, manufacture and remanufacture, and sustainable design."

Growth would be dictated by the constraint of sustainability. Sustainable innovation could provide growth opportunities without negative consequences. More jobs is not a given just one possibility, less jobs is as likely as efficiency and automation make jobs redundant. If you want sustainability to create more jobs it must be a mandate as it is not a natural consequence of sustainability.

This is naïve in the extreme.

"This model also limits the accumulation of wealth by a few because of the limit of finite resources serving everyone."

It does no such thing since the few are not prevented from accumulating more at the expense of others. Limits of finite resources does not create equitable distribution. The greedy must be controlled. Plundering or sustainable the rich will still accumulate as much as the markets will bear.

This is a huge understatement.

"a ground swell of public opinion will be needed to enable change."

The Neoliberal/conservative Plutocratic Oligarchic Elites will not go quietly.

This is probably the most important line in this piece.

"Need to include costing of environmentally harmful practices and to include those cost in the market, ie full cost pricing."

I don't care which model, full cost pricing or full cost accounting would be an improvement.

TEK