It’s a very centrist approach to the issues and assumes the supporters of ‘eco-fundamentalism’ have the stomach to follow through with the type of things they preach.

This seems incredibly unlikely, for all the rhetoric and ‘action’, the vast majority of the West are eating themselves into a happy oblivion. They care more about HFCS cravings and addiction than to any grand notions of saving the planet. This may seem an odd point but the creature comforts established mean people are willing slaves. The Greens again remain a small subsection of the broader left. The majority of the progressive left want to be in Haiti doing the same things the author suggests.

The only issue vaguely touched upon that may pick up speed would be demographic control – there is a concerted movement amongst Greens and white progressive types to discourage white’s from reproducing due to the burden Western consumerism puts on the planet.

The author is right in that what this means is eco issues simply turn into another form of exerting control over the masses, but the powers that be will not seriously tamper with or threaten the way of life they have become accustomed to. It is a mirage, a distraction, radical changes happen for political gain and then people slowly turn the power back on.

Look at Japan and their Nuclear power plants – the Germans might hold out longer but the geopolitical reality of Russian Gas might end that even quicker.

“Traditional agricultural economy can only be effective once it yields enough time for the land to recover”

Indeed but many modern technological solutions are as damaging over time to the land if not more so, to pretend there aren’t some glaring problems with modern agriculture is a bit daft.

Likewise the observation that in say Romania, an agrarian society, that life is tough. This remains true of most farmers (notable exceptions being the subsidies the French rake in) but for many even with modern techniques it’s a tough existence. Supermarkets squeeze the producer to an insane extent.

The idea the core issue is ‘human well-being’ again comes across as a centrist, utilitarian, almost progressive approach. The brute reality of the matter is most in the West value their dogs over a starving African child, I do not see this as inherently problematic, but as an eth-nat I would say that.

We have finite resources and percentile chances have to be weighted. The percentile chance is blown out of proportion to more reasonable estimates for what would constitute “ruin”. There is also the undue emphasis on CO2 variable given as how the truth is that we don’t even have accurate approximate model of the climate let alone a complete working model. The role of the oceans is still poorly understood and we’ve barely scratched the surface of building a model for long term solar activity. If minimizing the chance of ruin were in fact the goal, the most efficient use of resources and brainpower would be towards putting civilizations into more baskets as opposed to actively limiting our expansion. The main thrust of the article is that faith and holiness is what drives these crusades rather than reason and analysis. This is why they do such a terrible job of risk analysis; it’s all signalling and no substance.

So the answer is aggressive response to both/all events with a chance of ruin. Green views are not merely restricted to the left and cannot be painted in such an uncharitable view.