In this thesis I argue that state-centred regulation can and should play a role in guiding industrial societies to reduce consumption of natural resources and live within the ecological limits of the Earth. To support my argument, I provide empirically based evidence demonstrating how this can be done for individuals and households. I use a case study approach to analyse three regulatory regimes and I provide a cross-case study analysis to inform efforts to regulate for reduced consumption. The case studies are the regulatory regime introduced in South East Queensland to reduce consumption of water in the residential sector during the Millennium Drought, Queensland’s regulatory regime for managing recreational fishing and the South Australian ban on lightweight, single use plastic bags. These regulatory regimes have overcome key barriers to setting limits in a pro-growth culture, and offer practical and very important lessons to a society that, if it chooses to address the current global environmental crisis and live within our ecological limits, will in the future have to adopt a wide range of policies, economic systems and regulatory regimes that accept, set and manage greater limits on human activities. In this thesis I argue further that despite the success of these ‘stand-alone’ regulatory regimes, current environmental regulation and normative theories of regulation are anthropocentric and exist within a pro-growth world view. If we are to address the current ecological crisis we need to shift human societies from this paradigm, to one that respects and nurtures the health of the natural world. This thesis combines the empirical evidence and ‘lessons learnt’ from the case studies with an Earth jurisprudence analysis of consumption, to suggest a new normative framework for regulating consumption, respecting the Earth community and living within our ecological limits.