Precisely. Now, I don't know if this distinction is still recognized outside of the U.S. (even here the public seems to be unaware of the origins of the two) but the terms "environmentalist" and "conservationist" originally signified very different approaches to protecting the environment. Environmentalists believed in the preservation of nature in a completely natural state (exemplified by nature preserves) while conservationists believed in finding a balance in the sustainable use of nature (i.e. national parks and sustainable logging).

Personally, I come down on the conservationist side. Looking at the movement to save the Amazon rainforest, for example, you see the massive amount of attention paid by the public to the environmentalists' message did in fact result in a quite dramatic drop in the amount of tree coverage lost every year. With the economic downturn a few years back, the deforestation spiked 29% in 2016 alone. The reason being that most of the deforestation results from subsistence farming, which, despite being illegal, not only continues to spread but means that deforestation spikes correlate with slumps in the economy pretty well. The Brazilian government is reporting that deforestation is down for 2017 but that once again correlates with economic growth. Ultimately, the fate of the forest is tied to fixing the economic incentives and it just doesn't seem like the Brazilian government has done enough to transition the rural populations to a sustainable economy, instead relying on an underfunded legal initiative and so the chain continues forest>susbistence farm>land is depleted>cattle ranch>more land is cleared for farming>bought by larger cattle ranch>more land is cleared to unite the ranch lands. Focusing on tying the economy to environmental sustainability just seems to be the only viable long term in any circumstance.