  Well, it seems like time to have some nontrivial content here, even if this one's fairly facile... Environmentalism occasionally crosses my mind, and when it does it usually strikes me how extreme a shame it is that its strongest proponents are motivated by the wrong things, notably natural beauty and endangered species. Now I'm hardly opposed to either, but when policy rubber hits the road it's difficult to argue to politicians that the costs (in terms of money and people) of protecting these things are worth it; just as bad, activists are made to seem lightweight with treehugger images and tales of spotted owls, which is a shame since the important bits of environmentalism are about people. I believe environmental fights are pivotal. When individuals litter, streets get dirty; when corporations litter, people die. From heavy metals in water supplies to air pollution to bioaccumulation in fish to vicious, antibiotic-resistant bacteria getting free from the giant lagoons of pig feces that surround factory farms, today's environmental issues aren't about trees and birds, but today's environmentalists haven't made that case well enough. It's probably just a feature of the movement: young environmentalists will always get motivation from nature, not cancer, the fundamental texts will always be more like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring than Neal Stephenson's Zodiac , and the money will always come from pictures of cute animals, not sick people.
Unfortunately, real policy clout will never come from issues about animals and trees. I'm just hoping that the people who really do these things can start choosing (and sticking to) the right battles soon, and keep it up long enough to turn their image around. 
