I think I have an idea of how to explain anarcho-primitivism and it's relation to ecology. There is a moral framework called negative utilitarianism (limit the amount of suffering in the world).

The objectively correct answer for the moral framework is for everyone to die, but that was not the intention of Karl Popper when he made it. Despite his intentions, the correct answer is for everyone to die. People don't like that so they try to get around that.

Anarcho-primitivism, if we define purely in terms of human reverting back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is objectively the correct answer to organizing a society in a sustainable fashion. It worked for tens of thousands of years with no issues.

And I don't think is controversial. If we assume humanity exists, living just like hunter-gatherers is objectively the most environmentally friendly way, but obviously, people don't like that answer.

So basically the goal for people (from anarchists, bookchinites, marxists, liberals etc.) is to get as close to hunter-gatherers as possible without being hunter-gatherers. Obviously, that's where everyone diverges, but most people are not anprims.

And I should add, I think what confuses people is they think all anarchism mirror MLism (like there will be an anprim revolution where all technology is destroyed by the vanguard) and that's not the case.

Most people that I would describe as anprims (aka not the people everyone is interacting with) are actually more ancomish now, but in the future want to work towards a more sustainable society that would be voluntary to live in.