Ecofascism is slowly becoming the only way that some environmentalists believe change can occur. Asking people to do things goes over a little easier than telling them to. However, if it means the difference between $1million or $3million in profits, which would you choose? Requiring companies and people to conduct themselves in a manner that preserves what little environment we have may be a lot to ask, but it is necessary according to some. As the desolation of the environment gains exposure, and the environment based lobbyists gain funding, the issue is of more concern and ecofascism is more widely accepted as the way to deal with it.
As with all movements that seek to protect a certain group or piece of life, it often goes astray and finds itself advocating what does not protect the rest of people. Ecofascism is a natural outgrowth of environmental protection, as the anger at those who disagree is greater than the compassion for the earth.
'Green' and actual environmentalism are two very different things, and the very hardcore, no compromises environmentalism of the 'green' movement (including extensive propaganda to children) is detrimental to society and the economy. People should never take any position without any compromise necessary, and there are so many key environmental issues that no compromise is counter productive.
Yes, ecofascism is a growing trend among political activists, because it is stronger than it ever was before. You only need to look at the EPA and the number of laws and regulations that it has to known that the government wants to micromanage the environment and the businesses that interact with it.
I do not believe ecofascism is a growing trend among political activists. The term, newly coined, barely has a clear meaning and generally has no real world examples to pull in for further clarification. Most likely the term is being circulated on the Internet and news circuits for show or to get a feel if it will translate into real world politics.