Mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I really don't believe that negative growth is inevitable, and no use for those saying that average Westerners need sharp declines in their standard of living.  On the other hand I do agree that there is no way for the world to consume resources at the rate Western countries do, meaning that if poor countries are to stop being poor, Western countries need to consume less resources.  That means lots of changes in behaviour, some with a negligible effect on actual lifestyle, some with moderate ones, but no need for drastic ones (an example of the negligible effect ones is to use far more efficient cars - if you switch from a 15 mpg to a 50 mpg car that's an immense efficiency gain with a minimal effect on lifestyle, more public transport and a change in zoning to discourage sprawl while encouraging higher density living is a moderate change in lifestyle; going less crazy in cooling/heating is another negligible one with big potential gains; shifting electricity production from fossil fuels to renewables has zero effect on how people live).  The problem is that articles like this one either explicitly or implicitly say that we don't need to do anything at all.