Well there are environmentalists that practice a modern-day puritanism in that they deny themselves (and would deny others) comforts that they deem ostentatious because they feel that 'doing without' makes them stronger in some way. These people are generally not too helpful for the movement.
I personally am much more motivated by the idea of doing something more efficiently and with less (or zero) waste than I am by the notion of self-sacrifice. I think we should 'protect the environment' only because I find the less wasteful path more aesthetically appealing, and I have faith that man can be more efficient and less wasteful through his own ingenuity, without resorting to self-flagellation.
Oh, no doubt, there are the self-flagellating type, but I argue that holding them up as the standard is a gross mischaracterization of environmentalism. Just like there are with any movement, there are environmentalists who dreadfully miss the point.
I personally am much more motivated by the idea of doing something more efficiently and with less (or zero) waste than I am by the notion of self-sacrifice. I think we should 'protect the environment' only because I find the less wasteful path more aesthetically appealing, and I have faith that man can be more efficient and less wasteful through his own ingenuity, without resorting to self-flagellation.