Except for the motivation to become emotional (which usually has little to do with the actual state of things and almost always has to do with what other people do and how it bugs you) it's the ONLY motivation. No one is going to spend an extra $50,000 if they're not given a solid guarantee that the extra expenditure will pay for itself AND return a profit.

Impugn since you're comparing environmentalism to religion you acknowledge the fact that it is an effective method to get a message across. Christianity has been successful at that for hundreds of years, accepted as a benevolent measure to improve society by promoting good will, tolerance and justice. But those alone will not convince people to exercise them, there needs to be an incentive and an effective means to communicate those intentions because human beings are by default wicked and self centered. The approach with Christianity and Environmentalism is the same; instilling fear of what will happen in the future (death and chaos) and what must be done to prevent it. It feeds on peoples fears and emotions, that is the ONLY way people will listen. BUT there is a difference with environmentalism; there is a science behind it that is not concerned with promoting itself like religion does. The goal of science is to obtain information about the world around us and create further understanding of it. It tells us biodiversity is decreasing, natural habitats are being degraded, the air and water is becoming more polluted, there are too many people on the planet and not enough resources to support them evenly. There are many other problems in the world too, like crime, corruption, greed, violence, let religion tackle that (can only succeed because it provides some sort of incentive plan like salvation preachings), then environmentalism is the equivalent that goes beyond just the raw science.