Degrowth arguments is not lowering your consumption is enjoyable or popular; some might have written effusively about rediscovering vegan cuisine but I’d blame

Degrowth arguments is not lowering your consumption is enjoyable or popular; some might have written effusively about rediscovering vegan cuisine but I’d blame cookbooks usual enthusiasm for that one. Greta Thunberg was quite candid about how sailing the Atlantic was painful. Degrowth argues that technological innovation won’t be enough to save biodiversity and decarbonise in time. If you want to prove them wrong, don’t call them smelly hippies on a “grandiose world-saving moral quest”: that helps no one. Instead, invent electric cars, solar and wind energy, CO2 capture solutions, protein sources, etc. that are so cheap that you can replace alternatives. Whether those are ‘better’ can be subjective. The article would be more convincing if it described the day in the life of someone with a middle-class Western lifestyle with no carbon footprint and not destroying wildlife habitats. By saying that current alternatives are not encouraging, he’s arguing for degrowth (or catastrophic environmental changes) not against.