 As philosopher Mark Fisher said, people are more willing to think about the end of the world than the end of capitalism. The fact is though, the failure of ecosystems will directly cause the collapse of capitalism. The start facts are that both cannot exist together indefinitely. Environmentalism too is facing a crisis. For all the evidence they throw at decision makers, they still fail to make any significant change. They believe they just need better facts or more support, but neither seems to make any difference. After 30 years of suppressing criticism, recently these failures have manifested in a series of critical works. In 2020, there was Planet of the Humans, which led to whales of complaint from the movement and an organised effort to get the film taken down. In 2021, the book Bright Green Lies was published, followed shortly after by the film of the book. Again, complaints, but little introspection from those to whom it was addressed. Though some saw these criticisms of malevolent or organised by their enemies, they were in fact foretold over 40 years ago because they were the result of structural flaws in the movement itself. Bill DeVall was an American sociologist, a leading ecological thinker of the 1960s and 1970s and one of the founders of the philosophy of deep ecology. In 1980, DeVall wrote a paper for the Journal of Natural Resources. This was one of the first instances where the philosophy of deep ecology was defined, not just in terms of its own values, but in contrast to the structural weaknesses at the heart of the environmental lobby. DeVall begins his essay by contrasting these approaches. There are two great streams of environmentalism in the latter half of the 20th century. One stream is reformist, attempting to control some of the worst of the air and water pollution and inefficient land-use practices in industrialised nations and to save a few of the remaining pieces of wildland as designated wilderness areas. The other stream supports many of the reformist goals, but is revolutionary, seeking a new metaphysics, epistemology, cosmology and environmental ethics of person and planet. This paper is an intellectual archaeology of the second of these streams of environmentalism, which I will call Deep Ecology. These criticisms had been at the heart of the movement since the 1960s. By the late 1980s, when figures in North America and Europe sought to professionalise the movement to work within the mainstream of politics and economics, these criticisms were effectively extinguished. The Ecology Party in Britain, for example, labelled its deep green adherents as fundos, and under the leadership of Jonathan Parrott and Sarah Parking, they were marginalised as the party transformed itself into the green party. Deval continues his analysis. I contend that both streams of environmentalism are reactions to the successes and excesses of the implementation of the dominant social paradigm. Although reformist environmentalism treats some of the symptoms of the environmental crisis and challenges some of the assumptions of the dominant social paradigm, Deep Ecology questions the fundamental premises of the dominant social paradigm. In the future, as the limits of reform are reached and environmental problems become more serious, the reform environmental movement will have to come to terms with Deep Ecology. As the human system reaches its ecological limits and the biosphere begins to break down, clearly we've reached a point that Deval identifies. Reform is no longer an option. We must now talk in terms of radical change. Deval explores that when he says, Deep Ecology, unlike reform environmentalism, is not just a pragmatic short-term social movement with a goal like stopping nuclear power or cleaning up the waterways. Deep Ecology first attempts to question and present alternatives to the conventional ways of thinking in the modern West. Deep Ecology understands that some of the solutions of reform environmentalism are counterproductive. Deep Ecology seeks transformation of the values and social organisation. These counterproductive arguments from the environmental lobby, which have been the subject of over 30 years of academic study, are what Planet of the Humans and Bright Green Lies seized upon to make their criticism. What Deval is making explicit is that Deep Ecology does not function from an external imposition of change, the result of governments enacting environmental policies. It proceeds from the change of our own conception of ourselves and collectively as a society as we rediscover our place in the natural world as living beings. He states, In some then, the role of Deep Ecology in contemporary society is liberating, transforming, questing. There is utopia in Deep Ecology, a utopia based not on man's continued and intensified conquest or domination of non-human nature, but based on a questing for self-realisation. Someone needs to say this, Not in terms of a standalone statement, but with extensive reference to the work of Bill Deval, George Sessions, Arna Nice, and of course the technical observations of academic research which defines why simple reform cannot work. If the environmental movement is failing, that's not because it lacks better evidence or public support. It is failing because its methods and structures take the world as it is, rather than based on their course of change upon a measured empirical analysis of what is necessary. Deep Ecology is a window into the types of change you need to make in the world. Yes, as Deval says, it's utopian. But just as mathematics simplifies the world of numbers so we can quantify it, the role of utopian philosophy is to be a framework for comprehending the world and from that creating a new way to organise it. 42 years on from its publication, Deval's paper and its clear critique now realised in the predicted failure of the movement to make change deserves a much greater audience. To make meaningful change, we must realise the world within the viewpoint outlined by deep ecological ideas.