I am expecting a review copy of Klein’s book in my mailbox any day now, so I will withhold comment. I am guessing that I will share some of Boisvert’s critiques without being so quick to dismiss the whole package.
That said, support Klein or oppose her, the following passage of Boisvert’s resonated with me:
She nods at “problems when policy makers ram through industrial-scale wind farms and desert solar arrays without local participation or consent,”  but considers said problems readily solvable. So another contradiction: while Klein relies on Blockadia to eternally shout “No!” at lucrative fossil-fueled projects, she expects it to say yes to solar arrays that blanket the countryside—as long as there is proper consultation. This is far from a consistent or realistic political program. Comprehensive decarbonization must be planned and organized on a national and international scale. For it to proceed on the deadlines Klein wants, a great many clean energy projects must be rammed through in short order. If any offended local activist can block them, if indigenous groups can claim veto rights over whole continents, then things will grind to a halt. Extreme local intransigence will eventually be over-ridden, but the pervasive effect of Blockadia, if it takes hold, will be to slow progress at every turn. The result could be the opposite of the green mantra: acting globally while thinking locally.
That’s exactly my biggest complaint with everybody, left, right and center, on sustainability issues.
If the Breakthrough gang gets off this dime, I’m going to start leaning in their direction.
What we need isn’t a litany of “good” and “bad” things. (I was sort of blindsided in the 90s when hydro suddenly became “bad”.) What we need is objectively enforced global constraints. The only way to get there is a treaty. Therefore, what we need is a treaty, and what the marching in the street ought to be about is not a return to some fictitiously responsible tribalism but an advance to an actual, real, enforceable global treaty.