Read on Twitter
There are a lot of important arguments made here by @Matthuber78 such as the overemphasis on consumption/footprint accounting, and underemphasis on production/work; The prominence of technocracy/policy wonks; Not seeing workers as ‘victims’ but as agents;
Lack of unionisation in renewable sector etc. There are numerous things, though, which I dislike about the story of the 'professional class' enviro movement (as told by a member of the professional class himself):
Reducing degrowth to ‘middle class’ politics is a misreading at best, but likely a wilful misrepresentation. If Matt read degrowth literature in a more generous way, I think he would see there is some potential for a common project (though not entirely, as I say below).
His reading of degrowth as ‘we need to degrow in general’ (26:09) is an overarching statement which I have never heard a degrowth thinker say, at least without qualification. This is a pure straw man.
There is a long history of creating false divisions in enviro politics, and refusing generosity. Even deep ecology, for instance, was grounded on a class politics back in the 70s, but today is merely parodied as its opposite. So there are dichotomies being created to ensure
simplified narratives which serve particular interests. It would be far more useful if there were more honesty about the underlying world views being laid out here.
The caricature of degrowth re transport-by-donkey (27:30), brushes over the fact that we do need to rethink scale and technology. Instead, Huber wants us to support nuclear because...well...it’s unionised...ignoring all the problems around it as purely ‘technocratic’.
As such, on the one hand there is plenty of common ground, as @JefimVogel points out, re: ensuring equity and a liberatory democratic politics. However, I personally don’t think degrowth should always cede too much to seeing similarity, or seeking a common project. Are there
genuine gulfs in understanding of the world between much degrowth thinking and Huber's ecosocialism which seeks a nuclear-powered upgrade of our present way of life? I think there are (others might disagree) and we should be happy to acknowledge and debate this, esp. around
its vocal anthropocentrism, its unwillingness to challenge the Promethean technological paradigm, unwillingness to think beyond the strictures of 'electoral politics' and much more.