Someone I knew a while back who is even more cynical than I am told me that any so-called "environmentally-friendly" energy technology would be endorsed by the environmental movement only so long as the technology was infeasible. As soon as it looked like it was possible or affordable, they would turn against it. His reasoning was that the purpose of the environmental movement was the destruction of Western civilization and technology, not the saving of the Earth.

Cynical, yes, but I remember when hydroelectric power was beloved by the environmental movement.

Now, maybe the bloom is off the hydrogen economy.

However, if a hard-core like Rifkin is still on board, maybe this isn't going to be an obstacle after all.