Degrowth? Luddite movements have a pretty abysmal history, mostly because they tend to produce comparatively awful living conditions for those who follow them.

Degrowth? Luddite movements have a pretty abysmal history, mostly because they tend to produce comparatively awful living conditions for those who follow them. Those low-tech structures you prize consumed a lot of forests to heat, all with low energy density, high carbon-emission, high cost of labor wood. Never mind all the other downsides of pre-industrial society. I agree we should refocus the economy on more durable goods and housing, that's part of the solution. I'm not sure where your criticism of Nuclear is coming from though. It has the smallest mining footprint, all the nuclear waste dumps in the world could fit in an incredibly small area compared to waste products from other power sources. Small modular reactor designs basically solve the waste issue by being self-contained for their entire lifetimes. Nuclear is also incredibly safe statistically speaking, and produces no pollution in its power generation. Your last paragraph is telling as well. For those who think like you there's a social-revolution element to combating climate change. You see things as "already ruined", and have declared the "psychopaths in power" the absolute enemy standing in the way of "saving the planet". So you have all the resentful psychological license you need to burn the house down, with the rest of us in it, just to stick it to the psychopaths, and that's your primary objective. I'd rather save the house, with everyone. I'd like the psychopaths gone as much as anyone, but if you think de-industrializing will get rid of them, you haven't read much history.