It is an important distinction. To call it a luxury of the rich means it is frivolous. That's not the case. It's a lot like animal rights. Beside basic standards of humane treatments that exist in almost all cultures, the people living in developed countries care a lot more about the issue. My uncle's family is very rich, yet, not a single one of them is interested in environmentalism or even knows much about it. Here in the US, the middle class, and even less affluent people (hippies!), are conscious of their environmental impact. My uncle's family is worth a whole town worth of middle class people. What I'm saying is, environmentalism comes from the higher level of awareness that exist in developed countries at a cultural level. As opposed to issues rich people care about, like the estate tax.
I kind of agree with you, but the reason we started cleaning up the environment is because a culture of environmental awareness developed and propagated. Whether it mostly happens on the individual or collective levels is irrelevant. It is important and it should be encouraged on all levels. It may not be a top priority, but it is a positive value of foster, even if it costs a society a little bit on the economic end. The discussion should be about the relative worth of each policy (or action in general) whether economically, politically, environmentally, etc. There is no need to dismiss the importance of taking care of our environment as the trivial pursuit of the rich.
