There might be a slight misunderstanding here. Pierz isn't blaming science for consumerism. On the contrary, he's saying recent science is at least consistent with a more ecologically-friendly culture, one that prizes relations rather than atomic elements (or egos). By the way, I did a dialogue with Pierz on this topic, and he'll be posting it soon on his Medium page. (I'll post a notice of it when that dialogue comes out.)

Can we mobilize to save ourselves? That's not a philosophical question, so I have no expertise in the areas that would be relevant to answering it (psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, etc).

If I'm right, though, that people are anomalous in the animal kingdom, contrary to the dismissive sorts of naturalism (and to theism's supernatural exaggerations of that anomaly), there could be a potential downside that supports pessimism on this subject. If strange things had to happen to make for the emergence of the cerebral cortex, the opposable thumb, and the rise of self-awareness, behavioural modernity, and the Anthropocene, we can expect an anomalous ending of our species too. Animal species fade in and out over long periods in the evolutionary manner, or they exit together with some mass extinction event. But if we humans took control of our evolution, we might expect that we likewise have control over our demise. This means we'll do ourselves in in some anomalous fashion, to match our strange emergence.