In fact, the mass spreadings of wind turbines (in the countryside) and bicycles (in the cities) are examples of an environmentalism that equates problems of ecology with requests for technical fixes.
But if you equate both then you've already lost. You may then even ask the Federal Reserve Bank what ecology is (as the Fedral Reserve is an expert in "mutal dependency" and "interwovenness").
An environmentalism that ignores aesthetics and beauty as integral parts of any concept of ecology and environment is prone to short sighted technical fixes. "Sustainability" thus becomes the slogan of a green-washing neo-liberalism. (Interesting : they don't talk about capitalism any more, it's all neo-liuberalism now.)
It is worth noting that our sense of aesthetics changes over time. If something looks unsightly now, wait a decade and see what you think.
Also, I think increased use of bicycles has little to do with environmentalism and more to do with practicality and basic economics (i.e., cheap cost).
re: aesthetics : It's for the reason of flux that aesthetics seems to be a necessary, not a sufficient condition. On the other hand, "beauty" is a categroy that goes beyond fashion, even art, and is thus far more stable. If you encounter a species-rich habitat, e.g., the reaction will constantly be the same: awe, joy. Integrating that sense of beauty in landscape "management" is a pillar in the Japanese concept of Satoyama.
re: bicyles : Biking is advertised as an environmentl "friendly" way of transportation, it's at the centre of urban design and development. But as long as the rise in stress of using bicyles on all participants (cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians) isn't taken into account, its promotion reveals a "materialistc" stance on environmentalism that ignores the more filigree aspects. It's this "restricted" sense of "environmentalism" taht makes it an accomplice to capitalism.