Christian v "Green"

I am an avid follower of Sam Norton's blog "Elizaphanian" but a recent posting annoyed me somewhat .......
"the criteria for decision making between the Christian and the Green eventually diverge. The Christian is finally concerned with human flourishing; the Green is finally concerned with the health of the planet."

Does he think that being "Green" is a religion in its own right that poses some kind of threat to Christianity? Or does he just think that life is to be led in little boxes or cubicles from which we should be shielded from the thoughts and activities of the people in different boxes?

"Green" is used as a term to indicate someone's interests and concerns. It doesn't mean they are not interested in anything else. You can have a "Green Christian" just as easily as you can have a "Conservative Christian" or a "Socialist Christian". Not only is this a possibility but, I would say, it is essential for Christians to be "green", given the mandate in Genesis to be stewards of the Earth.

Sam goes on "I don't believe that a Christian perspective can see the environment as an end in itself." ...... " The Christian seeks the elimination of the sin, with a glad consequence of restoring environmental health."
This sounds very much like a "sitting on the fence" position to me........ a blame culture. His stereotypical Green, on the other hand, would say "Never mind why it happened or who is responsible .... what are we going to do about it?"
If you ever read this, Sam, which do you think is the most Christ-like approach?