Reading up on a bit of the guy's position and methodology (watched a bit of his conference piece too) I question the validity of his model. From what I can gather his 'human-environment interaction model' uses the same techniques as two way interaction models that stimulate dynamic natural systems like permafrost and coastal landscapes. This is clearly a case of a scientist applying a 'one size fits all' model to incredibly complex problems without any consideration towards the greater scale of the issues. Plus there's some obvious political bias in his work. In what way did the Arab Spring or the Occupy Movement show any examples of a behavioural shift towards a resource reduction model? Really it just seems like he's equating populist movements with behavioural shifts, which is a bit nonsensical. Good luck developing a movement around the reduction of human comfort when the movements he sources are directly about increasing human comfort for the participants involved.
In regards to the actual issue of climate change, the problem is more to do with an apolitical wealth-energy issue then any damnation of a particular political or economic system. Simply put, the modern economy is completely driven by carbon releasing energy due to technological limitations. The fact is that the entire human economy has been tailored towards it over the past hundred and fifty years, regardless of capitalism, socialism, statism, etc. simply because it's the easiest method of producing energy in the short-term. The expansion of human society has typically been a constant, only limited by our technological progress. Humans, being naturally self-interested beings, also like to pass the buck. China, despite producing 29% of major emissions last year (figure from RealClimate) argues that they have a right to pollute in order to develop, since the West already had their chance to do so (India argues along similar lines). In turn, the West turns to these rapidly industrializing countries and sees their lack emission standards as a problem. Ultimately, it's the prisoner's dilemma, no one is willing to do anything that might disadvantage them and grant an advantage to the 'other'. It's a basic human survival condition, avoid being in a weakened position. Individuals themselves aren't much better. "It's the capitalists'/government's/etc. fault!" they cry as they sit at home on their laptop computers, eating their industrial agribusiness food and practicing the constant consumerism they complain about. Attempting to alter human behaviour on an individual level has largely failed. It feels like most of these people are still projecting their own energy needs onto elites, complaining about how we're all doomed but continuing the behaviour they ultimately claim is suicidal. Hell, if you feel that way, do something about it. Form groups or communities based on low, renewable energy requirements, grow your own food organically, reject plastic, etc. If you're concerned about overpopulation, voluntary offer to not have children. Prove your convictions, don't just jump onto an internet forum and push the blame around.
Population growth now is mainly a product of developing world countries, while most developed countries are actually experiencing rather minor population growth (once you deduct immigration) or, in the cases of countries like Russia, are actually experiencing population downturns. Not that I think government population control is a good idea, but how the hell do you people advocating for it see any way of actually applying it? I can see a voluntary model working fine, but good luck actively trying to force people to alter their behaviour in a way that goes against basic evolutionary principles. This is, of course, ignoring the blatant corruption and favouritism that could easily emerge from such a system.
Renewable energy resources simply aren't economic on a large scale at present time unfortunately, even success cases like Germany's one-third solar energy production this year comes with major issues (Germany is still reopening coal plants, particularly in the winter, to cover energy shortfalls). We're also learning now that renewable energy comes with its own pollution (the recent production of wind turbines in Inner Mongolia has resulted in poisonous, radioactive lakes as a byproduct of the rare earth minerals used in turbine magnets, one can almost see this as the West 'exporting' its pollution to the developing world). Regardless of fossil fuel subsidies (terrible policy, but they don't typically drive the consumer price down for oil) most renewable energies simply can't compete in a market dependent on cheap carbon energy. Once again, it's the easy solution as opposed to the hard one. Basically, in my opinion, the only option we can realistically push for on a large scale is the constant development of better technologies in renewable energy sources, possibly even looking into geoengineering and genetic modification as well. Because frankly, technological progression has always been humanity's strength, while behavioural modification is one of its greatest weaknesses.