Jennifer, you state that:

"The environmental lobby doesn’t work from a set of principles that accord with liberal values; rather it is philosophically anti-development and anti-industry."

Implicit in your statement is
1) that liberalism is synonymous with capitalism,
2) that liberalism is synonymous with complete and unfettered freedom.

1) Liberalism is about access to freedom that goes beyond just freedom in the market sense, because life is more than just the market! Without good health, access to clean water and reliable healthy crops etc functioning freely in an everyday sense becomes difficult.
If you think that there is no evidence that GHGs matter, then I suggest you go outside the comfort zone of Australia and live in some of the world's most polluted cities for a while and wake in the morning sucking in that thick black smog. After you've done that for a while and your lungs start to hurt as mine and many of my colleagues who have lived overseas in such places have, then come and write an article about how industrial emissions don't matter blah blah.

2) By definition if we all had unfettered freedom, then it would, taken to its logical extreme, result in freedom for only some and tyranny for the rest. I am cringing that this is basic pol sci stuff that you dont seem to have thought about....

3) Liberalism necessarily pre-supposes certain healthy and sustainable conditions for that freedom. As an extension of this and point number two is the notion of freedom in multiple spheres not just for current but also for future generations.

4) the environmental lobby is not about being anti-development, it is about sustainable development and it pains me that I have to state the basics.

lia, Jennifer meant "Liberal" values, which have very little to do with "liberal" values ;-)

As understood this topic is a UK pensioners’ playground, overwhelmed with their superiority of an English person burden.

That is what Howard-crown-licker “environmentalism” is.