Yeah I just don't find that to be very "punk." In cyberpunk, we have drug-addicted hackers, alienated from society. "Solarpunk," to me, sounds pretty wholesome and very much in line with the direction that society wants to go.
And the curious thing is that being "wholesome" - at least in the 1950s kind of way - is just the narrative that the addicted acquisitive narcissists of today appeal to.
Topsy turvy times indeed.
Business and museums are shutting down for good.
Cities are emptying out.
Hugging another human has been demonized and is considered irresponsible.
People are getting fined for not wearing facial coverings.
Our way of life has been completely hijacked by fear.
Things are very unstable and then we have an election.
OTOH, if you're not in one of one categories you have very little to worry about.
We were at this before with both cyberprep and steampunk too in different ways. Cyberprep was more "work inside the system" and "technology has potential for good" and rebellion against tired old luddite science fiction 20th century tropes of fear and panic against science and technology. Steampunk is fundamentally dated such that its progressive or radical ideas and aesthetics as very old hat, its past traditional ways laughably obsolete. How much of the usual era suspect's past (Usually Victorian but one could on a trchnicality put in Bronze Age Hero punk as it is only an incorrect descriptor by convention) and old mores are included or not and how praised, condemned, or simply presented how it "was" unflinchingly.
Or at least, he direction that society should want to go.
I don't see that much conscience about climate change, renewables, energetic sustainability, resource depletion, etc, around me.
I'm not sure if you're paying attention, but current society wants capitalism and consumption until the earth has been pillaged. For instance, Joe Biden said no fracking after 2050. That's 30 years from now.
Or maybe, in such a case, the people who have actually been consuming (and emitting) like there is no tomorrow all these decades should make substantial adjustments to their lifestyle (i.e. pay more taxes), so that the people who have been consuming nothing can eat. Sounds a bit more reasonable to me. And we are not talking about a few people, especially if you are referring to the whole world.
Actually, for a brief moment I thought you were joking.
Well, being as how there's 0% probability of us ending fossil fuel usage in that time, I guess we'll put your prediction to the test. Personally, I don't see it happening...