Why have some environmentalists criticized participation in electoral politics?

Within the environmental movement, some activists have criticized participation in electoral politics due to concerns that the compromises required for electoral success undermine the movement's core values.1

This tension is often characterized by a divide between different strategic approaches:

• Fundamentalists vs. Realists: In groups like the German Green Party, "fundamentalists" (or Fundis) have argued that direct action should remain the primary form of political engagement and that forming alliances or pacts with other political parties is unacceptable. In contrast, "realists" (or Realos) have accepted the necessity of coalitions and compromise to achieve policy goals.1
• Direct Action vs. Lobbying: Radical groups, such as Earth First!, have historically eschewed traditional lobbying and political deal-making, viewing mainstream organizations as too moderate and overly willing to sacrifice environmental protection to appease politicians. These groups prioritize nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience as more authentic methods of defense.21
• Institutional Concerns: Some environmentalists fear that the machinery of government and the requirements of electoral politics inevitably erode the ethos of grassroots democracy and direct action.1