I am not a member of any enviromentalist group, nor do I have an agenda of promoting a specific view. Moreover, it is not my habit to use opinions of specialist, which in case of this subject would be ecologist, to prove my point. Which leaves us with the following.
Idea that enviromentalism is bad makes little sense. Enviromentalism is a reflection of certain issues that soicety is concerned about. One of this issues is to address a fact of changing, or as a case often is, degrading environment. To brand this issue as good or bad is oversimplifing the issue. In a crude way, the argument goes like this: "I dont care about enviromentalism, because for me the issue of degrading enviroment is outweighted by technological advance". Then your opponent says the opposite "I care about enviromentalism because degrading enviroment is not justified by technological advance". At this point conversation stalls. They may refer to some authority to prove their point, or they may base the argument on their personal experience, in the end they either choose to disagree in civilized manner, or start insulting each other, or one of them is forced to accept the opposite point of view. Why is he forced? Because in fact both are right, they just talk from two different prospectives. For one person it is important to see advancing technology (the fact that technological adavance should not be at the expense of enviroment is beside the point, nor is it nessesary to stop using a toothbrush just because you stop hunting whales), for the other person it is important to make sure that the world is still an enjoyable place to live in for his children (because for some strange reason this person enjoys places of wilderness). To denie him this right of enjoying his life as he sees it fit, is to use force, against which Ayn Rand so eloquently wrote.
Enviromentalism is; and like all other movements it has sucesses and failures. From what I ve seen in my life time, issue of degrading enviroment (as the issue of money managament) is important to address, and it is more pressing today. I dont care how many books are written on the subject, or how many people try to persuade you that "let it all be free, and unregulated and it will work itself out, because men are honest heroes, chained by the laws and regulations". It wont. Too much regulation will destroy economy, and make it miserable for everyone (apart from very few). Not enough regulation will create great injustice in wealth distrubution (not distribution of someones earned profits, but distribution of physical resources, "God given" for all to enjoy), making life miserable for everyone as well, again, apart from very few. The right course of action would be somewhere in the middle.
Regarding AR. Without trying in any way to diminish her achievement, and without discussing how she came to have views that she did. AR has created a kind of antidote to collectivism. Used properly it is a cure, used in excess it is a poison. It did help me a lot. She did however attacked a straw man, not a real villain, but its substitute. Who is the real villain? I d rather let everyone to figure it out themselves, which is the only way to figure out anything anyway. Suffice to say that extreme practical application of Individualism in todays world (the world of imperfect men who have faults and weaknesses) will lead to plutocracy, or just another kind of rule by minority. This time they will (and already do) use not guns or sacred scripts, but money.
This is what I have to say about this. Áre you working on some interesting philosophical enquiery? I am interested in the subjects of Morality and Personal Ethics. How do we explain that something is morally good or bad? is there such thing as a personal code of ethics, and how it was developed? Any contribution is welcome, especially historical prospective (development of).