In general the end conclusion is not very far from bulls eye/ but the underlying facts given are a collection of spin arguments.
First of all taxes contribute for 70% or more to fossile energy prices and have been building over time, so the amount of extra cost of exraction are relative small in comparison.
Second, productivity rate is not first of all connected to energy cost/ but wage inflation and fiscal inflation. Which is clearly a trend of postwar economy.
Third, a rise in complexity is mitigated by a rise in efficiency, so this by itself does not lead to higher energy cost/ but rise in income and consumption does.
Fourth, the third industrial revolution of course does not further incline energy cost, because digital technology is wiping out old economy traffic and storige costs. It cannot be compared as if economic growth and energy costs are a single connected driving wheel.
So, all in all the article probably contains more mistakes than proper conclusions. Nevertheless stalling economy and rising debt are correct conclusions. They are mainly caused by wage, real estate and tax inflation, causing labor outsourcing and a reason for smart solutions involving technology, like amazon, airbnb and uber to name a few, that both lead to extraction of old economy. Which has little to do with rising energy costs, although of course that also plays a role, certainly in rising economies in Asia.
This does call for a new economy. I agree. Certainly public awareness; political; plays an important role. I am convinced though you will need a new financial system first, before you are able to establish a more furtile labor and services growth. Which is my ongoing study right now.