I think most environmental argument is just normal politics. We have just expanded what people care about. A new set of things have become contraversial or virtuous. And these issues can mix in weird ways that cause friction and cost to people. But government and politicians don't really want these issues to be political. Balancing so many things is just too complex and fraught.

Also, a lot of environmental groups are focused on specific things. Expecting them to protect the whole world and all of the future is unreasonable. It's like expecting a cancer charity to reduce homelessness. Someone who loves birds just wants to protect birds.

> Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days?

That is not a self evident claim. At least, most people do not belong to environmental advocacy groups. The largest one is the Sierra club, with 1% of the US population as members.

Additionally any twitter bot or "crisis actor" paid by an oil company can claim to belong to the category.

It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for everything.

In my example, it was other kids at my school and their parents protesting it for environmental reasons. And mind you, the powerlines weren't even passing through our town so it wasn't NIMBYism.

Lots of NIMBY anti-development people would consider themselves environmentalist. They are in fact conservatives people that would rather keep the status quo and are against free market for housing and want their assets to inflate to insane prices.

Unsurprisingly.

Moreover, politicians passed unpopular laws e.g. ecotaxes or bans and direct blame onto "environmentalists".

It can be a powerful tactic to drive a wedge between general population and "environmentalists". Ultimately to protect certain companies.