I doubted it, and still do fwiw. The Eds did too I recall, though the criticism of Morningstar was limited to pointing out she failed to report that Thunberg had disowned the 'we don't have time' bloke who was trying to use her as a marketing ploy. I didn't/don't object to the exposing of corporate interests trying to get in on renewable [sic] tech action, but I thought tying Thunberg into it was unfair and based on no real evidence, more invoking conspiracy based on implied shadowy connections of people and organisations behind the scenes.
Not followed what GT has been saying since the announcement that she #standswithukraine, but the only 'solution' I remember her endorsing was tree-planting and other ecological methods of sequestering carbon. Otherwise her whole spiel was quoting from climate scientists and bashing political leaders for not heeding the warnings and actively making the problem worse instead of addressing it. So I think the above author unfairly pins govt policies of Germany and other EU countries on her, when their govts are responsible for their own actions - and he's a fool if he believes their decision was based on genuinely trying to stop climate change rather than rearranging their energy sectors in whichever way appeared most profitable to the relevant corporate interests at the time.
Otherwise decent article though, good to see a bit of peak oil analysis coming through again!