---
This argument so easily commits sudoku that I couldn't help myself. It's philosophical relativism, and self-immolates for the same reason -- it's inconsistent. It eats itself.
The irony is that he's doing it, just in the opposite direction of those he disagrees with.
Some things _are_ economically inevitable, and it's wishful thinking to ignore them. For example, it is inevitable that solar will be the primary form of electricity generation in the coming decades (and I am thankful that this is the case). For those that were watching closely, this was clear several years ago, and it is even more clear today.
People whose fortunes are built on the fossil fuel industry might wish it were otherwise, and they might dismiss "solar inevitabilists" with the same technique as the author. But those people would be wrong.
If someone says that something is inevitable, they could be wrong. But they could also be right.
"In the future, you will inevitably give me money. Let's discuss how much you'll give me."
vs.
"In the future, there might be some amount of money exchanged between us, in either direction. Let's discuss that."
Clearly, both discussions involve the same thing (money, us), but one is much more restricted than the other, and clearly benefits me more.
In this case of course, this isn't a discussion among individuals, but rather a social change. These are huge multinational corporations, with incredible powers of coercion. Of course they're framing things in a way that is maximally beneficial to them. I think the idea here is to raise the point that we should consider not blindly accepting their framing.