There's some good ideas in here but they're hidden behind a combination of confused thinking and intentionally provocative stances e.g.<p>> Sociologist Elisabeth Shove questions this standard and daringly suggests a controversial pathway for technological design: “…crafting buildings and equipment that do not meet present needs, and that do not deliver equivalent levels of service, but that do enable and sustain much lower-carbon ways of life.” Could engineers design technologies that are oriented away from cultural norms of speed, comfort, and convenience<p>That's basically the definition of a disruptive innovation. Remember when Linux wasn't good enough for phones/desktop/servers on various vital dimensions but excelled on others?
Degrowth is an apocalyptic death cult more concerned with atoning for man's original sin against nature than they are with realistic solutions for our climate problems