Crossed wires maybe, it read like "i dont think these things are problems at all".
See I think we have to operate with a little bit of courtesy to at least hear them out and not someones caricature of their positions. I mean lets even look through your links for these unstated meanings;
The first, with cattles, the only change called for is "It asked for the removal of livestock from public lands that are Herd Management Areas (HMAs). " I don't think that's objectionable.
The article about steel is about those very technologies to reduce impact and the government investment into them; I would say exactly what we should be doing!
The article about mining was two groups, first nations who objected to rules about their land and environmental about species protection. Ok, maybe a bit too nosy. But oh wait, it didn't mean jack shit in the end because the bill in Canada passed anyway.
The only prescription the car article makes is more autonomous vehicles and better urban planning. Nothing at all objectionable to me. It may not feel nice as a car owner to read all the ways the culture harms us but that doesn't make it not true.
So where's the green washing rent seeking that requires the harshest possible outlook?
Reputation destruction only works if your target cares what others think about them.
Oh I can't expect you to care, I wouldn't if it were me, this is just the internet so reputation is both meaningless and also all that matters here.
From where I stand I have a bunch of environmentalists who acknowledge the problems but have what I feel might sometimes have overly onerous solutions but opposite them are folks who won't even say the problems exist and promote things that would make it worse. I can work with one of these.