Yes, I would indeed prefer an economic system that is not based on capital: money, ownership, consumerism, power over others, grow-based, profit-based, competition vs. cooperation-based, greed-based…
Who predominantly runs the world? Who holds the power? Who was sitting on that judiciary committee? Overwhelming old white men. They are at the root of climate disaster. They have been yielding power since? Ever. And the world/earth is suffering mightily. Poor air quality, dwindling water supplies, poor water quality, toxic/poisonous water, poverty, war, desecration of the Amazon, desecration of antiquities in the Middle East, war, dictators…all associated primarily with men running things. That’s the root. (Not exclusive to old and white)
The problem with the article is that it’s effectively describing communism as the solution to climate change. That should scare anyone. And yes, many forms of society can contribute to pollution. Communist countries, like the USSR and China, have horrendous pollution records.
But the overall problem is the entire idea of a “de-growth” society. What does that even mean? How do you implement it? What secret police is going to outlaw activity deemed to be outside the realm of acceptable consumption? Should a wealthy person be imprisoned for having a second home? Should all iPhones be banned?
The argument is ludicrous, and incredibly scary. These vague concepts that the author is describing are the means to what has lifted literally billions of people across the global out of starvation-level poverty. Why should we deliberately return ourselves to that world?
Communism is based on this idea of stagnation, whereby everyone has this floor subsistence level and all other consumption is unnecessary. And yet, communist societies never come close to even achieving that subsistence level anyway.
The end game of this article is literally starvation, the abolition of freedom, and death. Not a great solution to climate change.