Sociologists could agree with you. Social networks have partially enslaved individuals. On FB I've got the contacts coming from my past on other social networks, but since I'm still in touch with a few of them, I ignore the others [the very largest majority]. There are persons who are not able to [or not interested in] filter in this way the contacts. This means that they will spend not a few time doing ... nothing but to keep in touch with unknown "profiles" ...
Yes. Ending cryptocurrency would also be wise: as things stand, bitcoin and the like are a power-consumption nightmare, and while my understanding is that it is possible to re-engineer them to consume less energy, you'd still need to use at least some energy continuously for the production of what amounts to a more volatile, parallel "monetary" system which is only really needed by speculators and criminals. But, this opens up the real problem with the matter: once we start talking about shutting down certain businesses based on environmental concerns in this this way, we can't help but end up with a lot of contention, and based upon usage statistics, the political impetus for shutting down something like Facebook is probably going to be lacking.
More generally, any sort of serious environmental action is probably going to be predicated upon a relative decrease in standard of living in at least some sense. I for one am willing to embrace such a drop; I already live substantially below my means, and could honestly live a bit more below them if I had much cause. My fellow citizens seem much less enthused with such a possibility, though, and that doesn't even broach the topic of telling developing countries, "Development is probably going to have to cease for the time being, and immigration from low-emissions countries to high-emissions countries as well." Sincere reform in service to the environment is something that, if genuinely pursued, stands to irritate those all across the political spectrum. Given that, Luke's sober acknowledgement of the realities of this matter is wise.
Saving species involves devoting money and expertise to improving habitats, encouraging more biodiversity, managing population numbers e.t.c. there's a lot of competing interests involved and so many species to balance out (do we focus more attention on saving insect x or insect y?). We can't save all those species, and if we do save 200,000 species we could inadvertently harm 300,000 other species (arbitrary figures but you get the point). For example, one charity advocating the saving of one insect could involve replacing one type of plant with another to encourage population numbers, only the new plant could end up displacing and damaging other insects who'll now need saving.
The general idea of saving the planet is great; coming up with a specific plan to please everyone on the planet is going to be extremely difficult.
People can protest and cry out against injustice all they please, but if they go back to a heated home, throw away a bunch of trash along with half of their food, and take an hour long shower, it doesn't really matter.
People are led by the media, and at least in the UK anyone slightly left of Atilla The Hun is painted as some kind of demented Communist.
Those participating in the protests are likely dwarfed by those who hate them for inconveniencing their lives in some small way.