The way to cut emissions is to tax the most emission-intensive goods, not to stop growth.

What these subjects mean

climate change Warming and what would actually move it: emissions, carbon, and the difference between a gesture and a lever.

degrowth Deliberately shrinking output as a climate strategy, and the arithmetic of who pays for it.

On the topicDo we shrink our way out of the climate problem, or grow our way out?under our view: Either the lever is a price on the dirty things, or there is no lever

What Branko Milanovic actually said

Do you hold this korrent?Do you also believe this?

Cannot both be true

You cannot make people adopt more expensive clean energy, because higher fuel prices are political suicide under any government.

Milanovic’s alternative to degrowth is to tax emission-intensive goods and services so people consume less of them. Handmer says it is obviously impossible to make anyone adopt more expensive carbon-free energy, because higher fuel prices are political suicide under any system of government. Milanovic’s remedy is the thing Handmer says cannot be done.
In tension with

Climate change is real and is not the civilisation-threatening disaster it was sold as, and the expensive policies bought nothing.

Milanovic wants emission taxes rather than degrowth, which assumes emissions are worth paying to cut. Cochrane says climate change, though real, is not the civilisation-threatening disaster it was sold as and that expensive climate policies do no good. They agree degrowth is the wrong answer and disagree about whether there is a bill worth paying at all.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.