There is a rich irony here. The rapidly growing use of shale gas in the U.S. has also driven down carbon-dioxide emissions by replacing coal in the generation of electricity. U.S. carbon emissions are falling so fast they are now back to levels last seen in the 1990s. So the two technologies most reliably and stridently opposed by the environmental movement - genetic modification and fracking - have been the two technologies that most reliably cut carbon emissions.

The irony resolves itself when you realize that they're not against specific technologies so much as they are technological progress in general, as manifested by a good standard of living in America. Funny though, they only worry about how others are contributing to their latest allegation of ecological decline. By being the ones to point out the problems, they believe themselves entitled to maintain, and even improve, their individual lot in life, irrespective of their carbon footprint. It's for the greater good, after all. They can be 'carbon-neutral', and thus sleep better at night, if they can get enough hayseeds to cut back on their consumption enough to offset the environmentalist's increased carbon output, including the hot air from both their jet engine and their pie-hole.

I generally listen to people who 'walk the walk' on issues important to them, even when I disagree. Those environmentalists that actually take (and live up to) the vow of poverty deserve to be heard, if for no other reason than they are not hypocrites; provided, of course, they're not so fringe as to be the next Unabomber.

However, most environmentalists, like most leftists, are hypocrites, so they can be largely ignored.