As long as the other part consists of dramatically reducing per capita energy and resource use. With all implicit consequences.

Here is a question.

Capitalism requires planned obsolescence and is hugely inefficient

I truly believe consumers want to purchase things that can last a lifetime presumably one could make a factory that makes these items, i know for sure they can be engineered to last and be easily consumer repairable. I think the amount one could sell would be large enough with the global population that it would sustain a factory especially if it produced all the generally available common household items, the workforce could be moved from section to section as the demand for any particular product dropped because the market saturated. Even if you sold the shit for 10X the price of a normal thing and just made it a status signaling object this would work in the west while people still have money to waste on status signaling. This would be a great business to start as a co-op or worker owned and run business.

The only thing standing in the way is getting enough people to be willing to put their skin their anticapitalism game and by skin i mean invest the money to start it.

The point being made in the article is that there is no meaningful substitution, just additional generation, while the total emission volume is still growing. At least, until the fossil extraction falls off the cliff, apparently out of the blue.

We're using them. The problem is they aren't replacing fossil fuels. Instead of a polluting coal plant, you have a polluting coal plant and a bunch of solar panels and wind turbines that were manufactured, transported, built from mined substances. It's better than building another coal plant, but it's not solving climate change. Power demand grows to use the available supply.