This article doesn't talk to the why but the what, and then pushes a unique academic view of the world problems at hand.
If we focus on the messaging, I will agree. Greta's views are more accurate then the ones you are choosing.
Now there are critical and fatal flaws in her views. If folks were to follow her path, it would mean shunning smartphones and a lot of the modern comforts people use today.
There is no upside in your rosy view of de-growth. We can review what happened to the Midwest and rise of populism which spawned this article as pure proof it doesn't work.
So proponents of de-growth, never talk to the death boards for medical services, the defunding of entitlements, the requirement of people to be stripped of most modern comforts due to the surges of inflation and the requirement of nearly all money and resources to maintaining shelter and food and possibly heat/cold.
If one looks at renewables, and we may get a taste this year. People will learn to choose. Heat or Food. Then we can recycle a 1970s mantra of if you are cold wear a sweater.
Why this call out? You take one possible bridge towards renewables and neg it away. Nuclear.
One can have both, but to shade it like coal? Well? Remember the praises for keystone getting shut down? The gas prices now are due to this and the crimp on investment. So now we get to empower countries that actually mass abuse women, and yet feel good because of maybe have some electric cars.
We don't have the luxury of scaling back, because we have the Baby Boomer generation who did not populate enough workers, and over spent and mismanaged for 40 years. So yes, look at the USA incumbents (Pelosi/McConnell) and this is us.
While the article I hope helped you release angst and anger, it is not going to help someone with the why's or the how's. It is a point of reference of the whats that people can say .... ok ... how does this make me feel.
Divisive communication will empower the hells one doesn't want to see happen.