No, they probably wouldn't think that. But that's how it comes off in many cases. Not all, but many. See the parent comment relating environmentalism to the r

No, they probably wouldn't think that. But that's how it comes off in many cases. Not all, but many. See the parent comment relating environmentalism to the romantic martyrdom of those concentration camp prisoners who offered comfort to others and gave up their last piece of bread. And its argument that Americans who refuse to stop flying/driving/using plastic for their job are somehow "emotionally" the same as Bolsonaro's politically motivated denialism. You need look no further than any Hacker News discussion of climate change to see tons of comments of how people should stop eating beef, stop eating all meat, stop driving so much, stop flying, pay more for clean energy, pay more in taxes, even stop having children (at which I will never cease to /facepalm), all with the theme of "There is no way you have any valid argument against any of this, so if you refuse to make these sacrifice you're part of the problem." I'm all for environmental regulation, I'd even be in favor of a carbon tax, but modern environmentalism has a huge messaging problem that makes both nearly impossible in the US outside of deep blue zones. It's way too moralistic and way too unwilling to adapt(ironic, given its cause). Maybe if environmentalists turned down the volume on climate change and talked more about good jobs, clean air, clean water, they'd make more headway. Find common ground and go with that, because in a functioning democracy we all move forward together (given a large majority) or not at all. And in my opinion anyone who truly cares about solving climate change should prioritize progress over virtue.