Environmentalism, a wash

Here's a hypothesis about the modern environmental movement:

There are actually two. The first occurred as a result of the stagflation of the 1970's and tends more towards deconstruction to serve environmentalism. These people don't necessarily see the economy as their friend. They've all read Silent Spring (and they did it passionately). They see cultural mass extinction (with a new [naive?] environmentalism coming afterwards) as the only way forward. They are environmental ecologists.

The second occurred as a result of the tech boom of the '90's. I think of this as the environmentalism of California. Its focus is on how we expend energy and consume resources. The techies of whom this movement is composed are concerned with how we will solve the resource constraint problems of the present and future so that there will be room for the environment. They worry about less than optimal practices in things like transportation (would it actually be worse if I biked?) and water rights (if we develop here, we'll have to import excessive amounts of water). They are the environmental (capitalists?) socialists.

I'm pretty sure that the old environmental ecologists have no way of winning their fight. I think that the new group could get lost trying to economize. The latter misses the forest for the trees and the former misses the trees for the forest. I wonder if it's possible for a new environmentalism to grow up that has sufficient perspective and position that it makes neither mistake.



(My references for the old group are Koyaanisqatsi, the films of Studio Ghibli, and various oldsters commenting on the big cultural milestones.)

(My references for the new group is basically random kids from Silicon Valley startups and their admirers. That I've found them is cultural and difficult to search out)