Nirvana fallacy (Perfect solution fallacy)

I would say they do yes. But "environmentalism" without an aimed-for energy consumption target and serious plans for the associated technological and ways-of life adjustments is something else: just pure entitlement.

Ref: In 2009, average individual energy consumption averaged 6,000 watts in Western Europe, 12,000 watts in the United States, 1,500 watts in China, and 300 watts in Bangladesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society#:~:text=The%...

> Do environmentalists fall into the Nirvana Fallacy when they demand an end to wind farms because they kill some birds?

This might be anecdotal, but the biggest might be Greenpeace and blocking nuclear power in the 80s and 90s (and beyond). The amount of carbon that could've been saved is enormous, but it wasn't perfect.