I'm not fond of the people with whom he associates. I've read two of his books. We disagree on a number of issues, particularly as regards how to re-establish native post disturbance forbs.
I just started looking at his further writings. But, you are welcome to your opinion. I guess you like being a minority of one though.
No, but thanks anyway.
I get that, but just the same you probably wouldn't like the folks I associate with. I really don't know who in particular you are talking about so this is a bit blind. What he says and how he backs it up would make about 50% of my friends heads explode.
But, he left GreenPeace for ethical reasons and has spent his time arguing for change and the environment in a way that assumes that half of mankind needs to be eliminated to solve the problem. Instead he assumes we have to find a way to sustain ourselves and not solve the problem through accepting atrocities and then argues how we might do that.
He supports nuclear power, genetically modified foods, he is a big advocate of heat pumps and other sane ideas. I have read a number of his articles now and find him to be pragmatic and open to facts and reason and changes his position when the science provides that a better way is more reasonable.
So we are left with your complaint about his friends. Which friend or friends of his are so disturbing to you?