The victories that the Green movement have won over the past three decades in policy have proved detrimental to the poor, counter-productive for the environment and blind to the economic mechanics of conversation. How many environmentalists have praised China for its 'green' policies, seduced by a decisive rhetoric and draconian population policy. They will often forgive China anything for introducing the one child policy (and killing off its products with smog).
Now, some in America, have broken away from the romantic notions of sustainability and balance that threaten to undermine the rise in living standards. Known as the environmental modernists, they champion the acceleration of progress and specific research paths that will reduce man's footprint on the earth. As an example, they would try and attract peasants into slums as quickly as possible and then squeeze the slums into attractive high-rises, all within a few decades.
A rejection of the red tinged romanticism that disfigures green politics is overdue and welcome, but many view the space freed up as an opportunity for rewilding: the recreation of a nature without humanity. In practical terms, this is deemed a sucess if an ecosystem comes into being that supports the few large animals left in the wild. Most of the others have been killed off by the Anthropocene. Earlier attempts like wolves in Montana have proved gruesome failures. And wolves in Scotland/England does not appear to be a votewinner, especially as Great Britain's civil service has its hands full cocking up a badger cull.
The support for technological solutions is a useful tradition to adopt and set itself apart from the left-wing irrationalists guided by a reactionary adherence to unproven farming methods and an insistence upon a local community that vanished with English folk culture. Hopefully, this influence will reverse the greenwash that has disfigured our political system for twenty years.