Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "kicker": your "doubts" don't get any more credible when you say "I sincerely doubt" and "I cannot believe." So you don't like his conclusion that "green" technologies may be harmful? Thus you "doubt" the whole piece. Smart! Also you get to compare it to other things you don't like. Motte-bailey much?
You think my doubts aren't credible? What does that mean? You think I'm lying about my own doubts? I'm not at all troubled by the thought that green technologies might be harmful (well, I'd rather they weren't, but it seems obvious that they are, though also obviously good in other ways). I'm "troubled" by his pinning all the troubles of the Mbuti and so forth on green technology.
I reread this, and I did not, at all, get the impression that he was "pinning all the troubles of the Mbuti and so forth on green technology." That is your misreading of it. He says that the pygmies have been horribly persecuted, and that the Green movement will make it much worse. Are you doubting that?
Secondly, your statement about how the WWF is not solely responsible for various evils is pretty disingenuous. Who cares if it's "solely"? They're a huge charitable organization that covers itself in virtue, and here they are committing an evil.
Lastly, the Web has given people, including you apparently, the impression that everything has to have a "source." How many publications do you think there are about the pygmy tribes deep in the Congo?
There's a legitimate question about whether this guy is credible, and we'd resolve that by looking at this publication and its reputation for probity, as well as the author's. Saying it's "unsourced" is something the Wikipedia pedants would do.