Generally speaking, the alternative to capitalism is socialism or communism, so an article claiming that capitalism is the problem and will essentially "wither away," to quote a prominent 19th century philosopher, is at least implicitly advocating for socialism or communism. I also thought the basis of the article, that fossil fuel-based energy was becoming increasingly uneconomical due to increased capital costs, was fairly naive from an economic standpoint. I was just pointing out a fundamental fallacy in utopian socialistic thinking generally, and the hubris of those who think that central planning is going to be necessary,. and will be effective, to fix large scale economic issues. I am not a pure libertarian: in my opinion, though, small-l libertarianism (but not anarchy) is best for long term prosperity and freedom - but unfortunately results in short term injustice, for which provision must be made (e.g., safety nets for the poor). Socialism is the opposite: it works great in the short term, distributing prosperity evenly, but is a disaster in the long term. And almost all of that has to do with human nature. Sure, people are greedy, power hungry, and self-interested, but they do not somehow magically become altruistic in nature by obtaining a position in government.
Regarding taxation, I understand dramatically increasing carbon/fossil fuels taxes are something a lot of people, particularly on Slashdot, favor. Being of a libertarian bent, I'm personally a bit skeptical that is the best policy.