This is a bit of a misleading title and article. The author claims to be against degrowth but then essentially makes arguments for it, with the caveat that we s

This is a bit of a misleading title and article. The author claims to be against degrowth but then essentially makes arguments for it, with the caveat that we shouldn't reduce production, but only reduce consumption. That's despite the fact that degrowth is primarily about reducing resource use, not really about reducing other measures of productivity. Degrowth isn't about avoiding all work, reducing the production of solar panels, or stopping the building of passive housing, it's about cutting wasteful activity in favor of sustainable activity, much like the article advocates for. This requires significant central planning, which they both say is a non-starter and then advocate for in the form of forced green development. Ultimately, I don't see a big difference between their proposed way forward and that of the "degrowthers". It could even be regarded as a treatise on what degrowth could look like in practice. Regardless of what mechanism we might invent for styling our growth oriented economy into a consumption reducing one, a big intervention is required, and we do need to intervene to avoid slamming (on ecological timescales) into malthusian limits in the ugliest way.