Human-centered Environmentalism

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but should the main concern of Environmentalism really be about what's best for humans? Let me explain:

Peter Sauer's "Reinhabiting Environmentalism" (pages 5-13) seems to pine for the good old days of the 1960s, before the Vietnam War caused everything to derail. Now, Sauer says, "movements" fight against one another, when in reality, they should be working together. I'm sure that makes sense, but I'm still a bit concerned about how human-centered the agenda seems to be. Sure, it's a good thing to be concerned about humans, but what's wrong with setting aside land for conservation, for protecting species, etc.? Does such an approach really limit total "buy in"? Is such an approach really inappropriate or off the mark?

Maybe the most interesting portion of the essay is the doctrine of the "precautionary principle" (12). Boy, I don't know about that one, though. I'm trying not to get too political here, so forgive me in advance, but didn't President Bush utilize his own doctrine of the "precautionary principle"? Acting in advance sure sounds good, but the consequences of following such a principle could be dangerous, couldn't they??