I would put it in the context of effective altruism: take the time you spend each week neatly sorting your cardboard and bottles instead of throwing them in the trash, and instead spend that time participating in a PAC to lobby your local shipping company to use reclaimed materials in their boxes.
I don't think the article is suggesting that. What I read was that the "misdirection" about individual impact on these environmental issues is taking focus away from much larger scale issues that are not being addressed (as a result of the misdirection). The author I think implies that environmental challenges seem to be of a "defeat Hitler" magnitude...and that to face the challenge we need to make sure we're fighting on the right front.
Edit: to add a little content, personal sacrifices also make you aware of others' use. If you're limiting water and everyone in your neighbourhood has brown grass, then there's going to be pressure on the local golf course to follow suit. And plenty of business chiefs, especially in small-to-medium businesses, start applying the lessons they learn at home to their workplace as well. To characterise the equation as merely "the effort stops at your front door" is pretty misleading.
If the author wants to effect political change, there's got to be a better way to convince people than 'your individual efforts are worthless', methinks.