I agree with your characterisation of (what became of) environmentalism, but I often sense a near-desperation on the part of intelligent people to distance themselves from anything like "spiritual but not religious" or "New Age" thinking. This is a big mistake. The "New Age" once included places like the Lindisfarne Association where William Irwin Thompson invited Bateson, Margulis and Lovelock to meditate with sufis and David Spangler whilst discussing systems dynamics and its relation to green politics. Check this out, it's cheap now:
Reimagination of the World: Critique of the New Age, Science and Popular Culture
... and anyone's equal philosophically. These guys invented the New Age and brought the term into the culture. It's not their fault it was hijacked and Thompson himself did not lose the plot. Listen to this recent interview:
The "spiritual" influences here are of the utmost seriousness and they are totally on track with Abram (or Curry). Spiritual is too often contrasted with 'material' as in the last sentence of this review -- this plays right into the hands of the dualities that have held the West prisoner in a non-natured culture.
There are a million people in this country alone involved with the 'spiritual but not religious' milieu. We know that anything from 1/3 to 1/2 of people have had a spiritual experience and many of them become closer to nature as a result, actively. I've seen this happening and it's also confirmed in the academic literature. Animism and spirituality are etymologically very close. The serious thinking in spirituality should be heeded because it dovetails with all the important Abram points and adds much of importance and integrity.