What's disappointing about his article is that he offers no alternatives, even though there are at least two choices available to break the apparent deadlock between homo-economicus and homo-sustainabilitarian:
a) Work within the existing economic paradigm, but use its existing levers such as pigovian taxes and a World Balance Sheet approach to manage resources and demands sustainably in the long-term, or
b) Challenge the often unchallenged assumptions about the continuing viability of the existing economic paradigm, and enter realistic dialogue about what we might do to adapt it to the current reality. The current reality is that we are, as a global species, in ecological overshoot - we are using resources at a rate that would take somewhere over 1.5 planets to support sustainably. We only have one planet. We could do with a new economic paradigm that recognises this more explicitly and helps us to steer into a sustainable path.