I don't mind if people adopt environmentalism as a religion where all trash is a sin, I just don't want to be a part of it. I want to think about environmental impact broadly and go after the high impact items. Talking about K-Cup trash is a distraction from what is important.
I can't say that I understand the single-mindedness, but congratulations on the electric car or the not commuting so far or whatever.
Unless what you're saying is that you're going to ignore everything that pollutes less than the important high-impact items that you're also going to ignore.
I also think people who obsess over polyethylene grocery bags are bad at math. Unfortunately, many of these people manage to influence public policy to my inconvenience. It is religion, not science.
The restrictions on minor consumer items are a penitential hairshirt.
I think your "big-picturism" bypasses the immediate absurdity of consumer environmentalism, but leaves the deeper contradiction untouched.
"Rational" environmentalism implies some cost/benefit analysis. Is it "bad" for one person to burn 100 gallons of gas per day in his commute? Is it "ok" for 100 persons to burn the same amount? What if the one person produces as much "benefit" as the 100 persons? Who gets to define benefit?
It's like writing this comment on HN, what value does it bring to you ?