I did. No I won't.
Point is that high tech capitalistic food & energy production has FAR less impact on the environment than solutions promoted/forced by enviroweenies.
OK, I'm going to say this simply, based upon much of my twenty years in native plant habitat restoration: IMPACT IS WHAT MUCH OF THE SYSTEM NEEDS. There, got it? The PRESUMPTION of "nature" as separate from people, when for the last 10,000 years the continent has been shaped by people, is completely idiotic. I said it clearly and neither one of you got it because you are both suffering from the same errant presumption. So please dump the condescension.
People mitigate catastrophic events by inducing more frequent periodic disturbance. Much of the system suffers from succession run amok, and infestation exotic weeds. The former needs to be interrupted or set back, and the latter needs MONEY to deal with the problem. Without resource industries it will be unaffordable and the infrastructure will not exist. That's only a teensy bit of what I have to say on the topic.
That technology can mitigate the impact of industry and development is a borderline truism hardly worth the article (albeit one lost on the greenies), yet the author misses the blessings of applied technology to free enterprises in enhancing environmental productivity (the development and internal management of such an industry was the topic of my first book and my business method patent). My post was merely to correct an errant presumption by the author: environmental "protection" per se by minimizing or concentrating impact (as if leaving it alone is the best we can do), is a destructive and dangerous idea for the environment, on which I have a great deal to say beyond what is appropriate for this forum.