

I’m not sure whether we have the same idea of what it means for capitalism to be compatible with something. Maybe setting aside direct action for now, major reforms in all of the areas you mentioned could be implemented in a society with a predominantly capitalist mode of production, with enough political power. It would be a move away from capitalism, strengthening socialist and statist modes of production. But it would not mean the end of capitalism as a mode of production. It doesn’t mean those reforms could be implemented only or even preferably by completely terminating capitalism, i.e. private capital and production, at once through total revolution.
There are always multiple modes of production active in a society. For an example case, compare the USA and any nordic country. Both are predominantly capitalist states, but in a nordic country, there is far more production following a socialist and statist mode than in the US. Of course, major transformations are also needed in the nordic countries to get on the path of degrowth, that’s for sure.
For reference, André Gorz, who is one of the most influential degrowth scholars, developed the concept of “non-reformist reforms” which are anti-capitalist reforms in a capitalist system. Another good read is this piece, “How to think about (and win) socialism”. Erik Olin Wright writes about the complexities of production relations and strategic logics of transformation.
I hope so. Although I’m not sure whether it is solarpunk or some other term under which the ideas will be popularized (eg. degrowth, eco-socialism, minor paradise, doughnut economy, ecological civilization). But I find it likely that solarpunk will be packaged together with communism, as communism, by the right. And demonized.