Watch the Funny Man!
Admittedly, TL;DR entirely, mostly because I've heard more or less the same hackneyed arguments for many, many years.
It borders on idiotic to suggest that (lacking lots of cheap space flight options to exploit extra-planetary resources) a) infinite growth (of anything) is possible; or b) that any specific resource will not, eventually run out.
You can debate the end dates for either, but cannot reasonably or intelligently argue that either will not happen.
And that's leaving aside the varying definitions of "growth" that only measure selective targets that suit the people who most stand to profit from "growth."
I am not remotely in the neo-Luddite, hemp will save us, and we should all ride bicycles and eat home brewed tofu camp, but neither am I so blinkered as to ignore the very real consequences of our current business and economic practices.
What we know:
More industrial production almost invariably leads to more green house gas production, or, as we called it in olden days, "pollution."
By "pollution" I mean "stuff that is unhealthy for people, animals, or plants."
Somewhere along the line we have been convinced that the almighty need for "growth" trumps any need for clean water, air, or even a habitable planet. Is this in any way sane or reasonable?
In the absence of government regulation many, if not most corporations will pollute with impunity, will drive incomes down endlessly, and will as quickly as possible exploit a given resource and then leave the clean up for whoever is left behind.
Go on, show me a country without strong regulation where these things don't happen.
No matter how you look at it (and debunking fairly ancient Club of Rome projections is really quite beside the point) the trend is towards more people, more use of finite resources, and more pollutants dumped into our environment.
Regardless of "growth," there comes a point when people start dying off, or critical resources start disappearing. And no, recycling old Christmas tat won't fix it - only in science fiction is any industrial process 100%. And the idea that you can always just substitute resource A for resource B is equally daft: all that does is speed up the eventual depletion of Resource A.
At some point you wind up at Resource Z, and need to figure out how to drive an entire global economy with nothing but lead and belly-button lint. It may be possible, but I don't want to be around when it happens.
It is telling that the people who write drivel like this article never really offer up a solution to these problems, aside from the magical promise that either the "free market" or technology will fix everything.
When people like Worstall start telling us explicitly how they will maintain endless "growth," while simultaneously reducing the amount of pollutants generated, and how they will deal with the eventual loss of resources, I'll bother to read their articles.
"Er, we're not all going to die. Sorry about that"
Er, yes we are. All of us. The only question is how fast, and how soon.