There are several questions here. Let’s start with the hypothesis that sustainability is averse to consumerism. Indulge me with a digression for a second. We often talk about four factors of production (materials, labor, capital, and managerial talent) but have ignored a discussion of the last factor of production, namely natural capital such as water, carbon, mineral resources, and so on. We, by and large, assign a cost of zero to natural capital, while calculating corporate income and GDP. We may have a hard time figuring out the true social cost of natural capital, but it is certainly not zero!
So, does sustainability mean anti-consumerism? It does not have to be. Growth can also mean GDP improvement per unit of natural capital consumed. The idea of de-growth, pushed in certain circles, is a non-starter in emerging markets. We cannot sell sustainability to folks in India and Africa by telling them that we are about to conserve our natural capital and will hence not aim to grow in the future.
My hope is that technology will evolve such that we can produce GDP and corporate net income with a lower investment of natural capital consumed. If I were an engineer at the fabled IITs (Indian Institute of Technology), regional engineering colleges and so on, I would work on coming up with ways to increase our growth without expanding our carbon footprint or consumption of natural capital in general, cheaper and better ways to storage energy in batteries, and work on adaptation strategies as extreme weather events become more common and hurt populated coastal regions in India.
There is a lot of room for optimism. Recall that until around the early 20th century, gasoline was considered a nuisance byproduct as opposed to an invaluable asset. Rare earth minerals until the age of the smart phone was not considered to be of much value. Human ingenuity will hopefully find a way to maintain or increase growth with minimal consumption of natural capital.