I would argue that industrialial capitalism is, by definition, a system of quantitative growth, which has been threatened by these new productive forces, and has had to repress them, or at least channel them in distorted directions. The crisis of Fordism over the last 20 years is related to the costs of that waste coming due. Money is quantitative wealth abstracted. Capitalism is by the definition an alienated relationship between means and ends. Qualitative growth, I would argue, cannot be created as a spinoff.
Quality demands specificity.
Ultimately this undermines the basis of capitalism, the dominance of exchange-value. This doesn't mean the end of money. It means money should be returned to the status of means of exchange. But community scale, and things like the product stewardship systems Hawken talks about, are also ways by which end-use is put in command. So it seems to me that those who have been defending conventional economic growth over the last 50 years are grasping at straws, because there are vastly more efficient ways to provide for people's needs, and to regenerate bioregions, than quantitive growth.