Different activists have different goals. Assuming societal death is a goal is extremely uncharitable and wrong for the majority of activists. For example, I b

Different activists have different goals. Assuming societal death is a goal is extremely uncharitable and wrong for the majority of activists. For example, I believe that carbon emissions and the resulting climate change is the biggest climate issue we face. I live in California, many people here are against damming because it will damage the natural environment where the reservoirs form. I think the reservoir damage is worth the “carbon cleanliness” of hydro power. Other people care more about preserving untouched nature more than the climate. They have different goals. Still others think we should reduce consumption of resources like plastics because of their environmental impact. They may prefer more expensive or energy intense production methods and recycling methods. Most activists won’t say something else is bad. Eg I think recycling is good, but I would prefer lower greenhouse emissions over lower trash. FWIW I don’t eat meat. It’s better for the environment, because it’s reduce emissions. It’s also less wasteful of water which is environmentally expensive. I don’t eat almonds for the same reasons. But I’d rather expend water if it reduced emissions, but I’m not sure of any examples where those are opposed, maybe with certain fabrics and their cost of production? My jobs is also to reduce methane emissions at natural gas facilities, because in 2023 we need gas so let’s try to make it less polluting.