Biggest point this article gets right: The political figures who brand themselves as environmentalists are there to syphon energy and support for these movements, while providing no real change.

Biggest thing this article gets wrong: Not realizing that the dismissive approach to indigenous peoples and the poor does not make a policy (by defenitiion) ineffective. Turns out that environmentalism and humanism can be (and often are) at odds.

I don't think problem 1 will be solved until problem 2 is addressed, because pretending like there is no contention or sacrifice by the already downtrodden in order to prevent climate change is the only way the grift maintains popular support.