David Roberts had a similar reaction to the James Fallows article on Clean Coal technology: Why does Fallows write as if environmentalists' hatred of coal were the problem? The whole thing is worth reading, but here is a taste:

If "clean coal" development isn't happening in the U.S., it's not because DFHs (Dirty F*#king Hippies) are against it, it's because nothing is happening in the U.S. A piece focused on that corrupt, criminal inaction might rattle a few cages. A piece reassuring Big Coal and its many backers that they'll always be in the driver's seat won't.

Dylan Matthews concurs:

But, as Roberts notes, climate hawks aren't in charge. Because of the filibuster, and now GOP control of the House, the balance of power rests with people who deny the need to take just about any action to stop climate change. So why is Fallows concerned with rebutting them, (Quietnorth note: "them" refers to climate hawks or "Dirty F*&king Hippies" as the case may be) rather than trying to win over people to his right, who are actually in a position to change things?