Some thoughts on articles like that:
Environment-friendly people are often against long distance travel and trade. Yet the planet wide “ecological” thinking IS the product of globalisation. Trade, travel and communications give us better understanding, stimulate exchange of goods and ideas instead of fighting or ignoring each other. Isolationism would shrink our vision.
As somebody who never had a car (but has relatives abroad and likes exploring the planet), I see ecologically-minded people driving a lot, to conferences or meetings, or just to work. Yet Findhorn isn’t good enough because they “tend to fly as often as the ordinary Westerner” (What about Japanese?) People seem to contradict themselves. Sometime, possibly, trying to prove themselves. If one don’t mind quitting travel he or she may advocate for everybody to do so. But not the car as this would be too much of a sacrifice, personally. If one doesn’t like meat she or he may declare that everyone should became vegetarians. Prediction of the future is not a precise science, so they all may find data or articles supporting their particular view. I am not saying it always happens this way, at least not consciously.
Is there also a danger that if people repeat their favourite end to the world prophecy (or the collapse of the civilization prediction) they start to wish for it just to be able to say “I’ve told you so”? And aren’t examples from around the world show us that when “everything collapses” it’s not peaceful preppers / ecovillage folk who wins but whoever has more guns?