I get a bit irked by questions of this ilk. (Not at you, @Just_Justine, but at questions like this.)
There is no need to “save the Earth” or “save the environment”. The Earth isn’t going anywhere but ‘round and ‘round the Sun as the Sun directs the movement of its entire Solar System through the cosmos. And ‘the environment’ is a changing thing, anyway—wherever you happen to find it. You can no more “save the environment” than you can “save your life”—your life is changing, too (and it’s going to end someday no matter how much you ‘save’ it—and so will ‘this environment’).
But sure, you can do things to affect your local transient environment for ‘more of the ‘higher-level’ organisms that we like’ such as kittens, puppies, pandas, polar bears—and humans—and make it perhaps less habitable for ‘only’ the organisms we don’t so much care for, such as bacteria, crabgrass and dandelions. Along the way, we generally agree that we want an environment in which coral reefs, plankton, grasses, seaweed and other ‘lower-level’ organisms can also thrive—so that the bigger things can eat the smaller things that eat the tiny things. Etc.
To that end… yeah, I try to waste less water (except that even ‘waste’ water finds a use in ‘the environment’), waste less paper and plastic (because I have to throw it in the trash every week, and I hate taking out the trash) and burn less fuel (mostly because fuel costs money).
Which gets me to the meat of my argument: pollution = waste (and taking out the trash more often). If we pay ‘market rates’ for the things we use, including fuel, water, packing materials and food, then we tend to waste less of it anyway, because that involves direct cost to us. Business is very sensitive to this as well. This is why I disagree with your claim that ‘industry has turned a blind eye’. Most businesses run by rational and profit-driven managers are very sensitive to the lost cost of the waste and pollution that they produce, and take all rational and reasonable economical steps to reduce those costs. (No, not “everything possible”, which would not be responsible in terms of continued profit, but ‘everything rational in order to increase profit’.)
I don’t agree that carbon dioxide is the bogeyman that so many others do, so I don’t recognize steps to constrain its emission as a byproduct of electric power generation and transport (to name two examples) to be ‘reasonable and rational’ in and of themselves.
Aside from that, I pick up the trash in the street in front of my house and in front of my neighbors’ houses (since they don’t seem to mind it so much, and leave it for me).