I suppose being an economics student, I subscribe a little to what he is saying. The optimum level of pollution and/or greenhouse gases is not zero. (This is not to say it can't ever be zero, but with the current level of technological innovation, my point stands.)
Well, how could this be? Simply that, in order to get enough power to run everything that we "need" we're going to require a lot of energy. This cannot just come from green sources. Not only are they (Remember my first point - at the current level of innovation) costly, but for the most part, they are also largely inefficient. I believe that we should take every necessary step to cut down on our emissions (installing private wind-turbines and solar panels), but we also require extra sources of power.
Since Congress refuses to drill for oil in Alaska and to research new drilling techniques in Colorado, (Because of the amount of water it would require...? What?) there aren't many options left. Nuclear power is simply the best option at the moment. Admittedly the up-front costs are extravagant, but in the long run, the costs rapidly decrease. (And with new ways of recycling nuclear waste, it is becoming even more attractive!)
Sorry for the rant, I just believe that he does have a point here. It passed EPA standards. He wasn't talking about activists, rather, extremist groups. There's a huge difference.
Let's take an example...Activists... Muslims! They enjoy pressing certain agendas on Congress, everyone does. There are certain laws that we have that aren't the most appealing to them, and some that could even harm their freedom of religion. (Read: First Amendment rights)
Extremists... 9/11 bombers, Al Queda, etc. They enjoy blowing things up and calling it religion.
I don't think he was taking a stab at "activists." He was merely pointing out that coal has improved a pretty drastic amount, and I'll be the first to admit that the change was well-needed. (And that the change was brought about by activists. =) )
- John