Yes it is.

We have run out of ipv4 addresses, CGNATs cause problems with self-hosting, ipv4 allocations are not fair and are driving up the cost of infrastructure/access. Particularly problematic in developing Countries.

Security is not an argument, ipv6 firewalls have existed for a long period now.

If we want to make the internet to scale then we need to encourage the use of ipv6.

Is that really what's happening? It gives each device an address which is unique at the time but those devices get new addresses periodically when the network configuration changes, they roam networks, etc. and there's no global registry linking addresses to people or even the same device.

From another angle, most people are walking around with a globally-unique identifier (IMEI) in their pocket with all kinds of sensors. Does using IPv6 materially change the situation for any attacker?

In IPv4, dynamically leasing different IP address by connecting is a mitigation of lack of address stock (at least dialup from PC era, I don't know how much effective in router era). In IPv6, ISPs don't need to do that so they can just lease dedicated IP block to customer. Then they don't need logging IP-to-customer-by-time for investigation.

If you really care, almost everyone's IPv6 implementation includes prefix delegation. Jump around your prefix instead. A lot of countries already require ISPs that do CGNAT to keep a connection log so your individual connection can still be traced back to you