When we clamour for more wind-power stations in the wilderness, we perhaps think we are helping to slow this machine, but we are actually helping to power it. We are still promoting, perhaps unintentionally, the familiar mantras of industrial civilisation: growth can continue forever; technological gigantism will save us; our lives can go on much as they always have.

In the end, climate change presents us with a simple question: are we going to live within our means, or are we, like so many civilisations before us, going to collapse? In that question lies a radical challenge to the direction and mythologies of industrial society. All the technology in the world will not answer it.

In effect he's just mucking up the debate with an artificial dichotomy.  Of course we must alter civilization to live more within our means.  Who says one can't build windparks responsibly?  Who says that after their useful life the wild can't be reasonably reclaimed?

Me, i want to preserve the human experience of wilderness, and am willing to destroy civilization with more coal and nuke plants to preserve that wildness.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin