It's hard to imagine an educated person in modern times who doesn't realize the importance of environmental protection.

Centuries of unchecked resource harvest, land development and pollution have unequivocally demonstrated that people can and do have a devastating environmental impact. Environmentalism, per se, is a relatively recent development, and it still doesn't mean much in many parts of the world.

But with almost weekly reports issuing increasingly apocalyptic global warming forecasts, it must be difficult for anyone in the developed world to ignore environmental issues altogether. Many young people worldwide feel compelled to do something. And they should.

The overwhelming question is, "What?"

How can we make a substantive environmental impact for the better in the face of continued reckless resource harvest, land development and pollution? This is not just a matter of carbon footprints — many ecosystems continue to fail as a result of far less cumbersome problems than global warming.

Although any attempt to "help" the environment is admirable, I suppose, it must be the goal of any environmentalist to make a contribution that matters — to make an effort that works toward an attainable goal with real environmental benefit.

Sometimes I fear that the most vehement environmentalists gloss over this basic value in their exuberance to save the planet.

Take, for example, the folks living in trees at the University of California at Berkeley. It seems school administrators would like to build a new athletic training facility where the trees stand, but protestors have taken up residence in the limbs. It's hardly the first protest of its kind, and similar protests have been the source of conservatives' favorite environmentalist put-down: "tree-hugger."

Although I'm far from conservative concerning the environment, I do have to wonder why these tree enthusiasts are spending their energy in Berkeley's — or any other city's trees — instead of working to protect trees within productive ecosystems up and down the west coast, which are sometimes harvested in poorly regulated logging operations.

Evidently, a judge wondered also, because UC-Berkeley administrators have been given authority to remove the protestors from the trees and proceed with construction.

Emotions and environmentalism don't mix well. A strong appreciation for healthy forests is requisite, but an undying love for individual trees may be a bit over the top.

Sea lions on the Columbia River may look cute, but the salmon's depleting population is just as ecologically valuable. Seattle may be green, but disdain for anyone who drives a truck or SUV is probably misguided.

The best approach to environmentalism for most of us may be the easiest — simply, do what the experts say.

It's glaringly obvious, but a small individual difference made by many people over time becomes a large difference. Use public transportation. Monitor your use of electricity and water. Buy local foods when possible. Vote for officials who know something about the environment. If you're feeling ambitious, go on a hike and pick up some trash.

Individuals with more enthusiasm (like the Berkeley tree-dwellers) may be compelled to join organizations engaged in environmental lobbying or habitat restoration projects, for example. Non-governmental organizations can be invaluable in educating the public on environmental issues.

There is little doubt that many of the world's environmental problems will get worse before they get better. But despair will get us nowhere.

Working toward environmental protection and restoration with directed and realistic objectives will go further than anything else in avoiding the disasters the experts have predicted. There may still be time to prove them wrong.

[Reach columnist Andrew D. Brown at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]