Anderson discusses Freeman Dyson's From Eros to Gaia (1992):
"[Dyson] tells us that we can probably bring carbon dioxide and oxygen under control by extensive, worldwide reforestation." (p. 241)
"He remarks wryly that the environmentalists won't like it because it denies their gloom-and-doom scenarios and their Luddite ideals, while the conservatives won't like it because it requires large-scale government action." (ibid.)
Anderson defends conservatives against this charge but not environmentalists. Why should either environmentalists or Luddites dislike reforestation? Would environmentalists dislike it if their gloom-and-doom scenarios were not fulfilled?
Years ago in Britain there was a campaign against deportation of a man to an African country on the ground that he was likely to be wrongly imprisoned or even executed if he were sent there. The man was deported but fortunately was neither imprisoned nor executed. The Daily Mail newspaper commented that the campaigners must have been disappointed!