It seems to me that the common thread -- human behavior -- is the real point. And it's the only thing we can individually or collectively change. It's a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" situation. The article's value is in challenging the changing fashions in environmentalism, which falls prey to all the weaknesses other movements experience. We get bored, we get frustrated, discouraged; we learn a new concept; new information is revealed or confirmed, or debunked.

If we can manage to keep hold of the thread of habitat destruction, weave it into the climate change threads, combine it with local foods awareness, etc., we can perhaps weave a whole cloth of effective change. Does anyone argue anymore that it's not worth the effort?