There is a growing recognition amongst policymakers, business leaders, civil society actors and others that the major environmental challenges we face—e.g., climate change, biodiversity and habitat loss, degradation of air and water quality—are fundamentally problems of human behavior. This welcomed, if belated, recognition of the core nature of these problems has resulted in an increased interest in the possible application of psychological science to inform and improve efforts to avoid adverse outcomes in the future. Indeed, there has been an explosion of both descriptive and experimental research in the field of environmental psychology over the past two decades, much of which explicitly aims to support efforts to address these and related problems of environmental conservation through the promotion of targeted behavior change (particularly at the individual and household levels). Although there is some evidence that this field of research has had positive impacts (e.g., improved efforts to address problems of environmental sustainability through voluntary changes in behavior), there is also a growing (and sometimes heated) discussion around the limitations and potential unintended (negative) consequences of this approach to promoting environmental conservation. Given this context and the stakes of "getting it right," my goals for this talk are twofold: first, I want to clarify and contextualize the key considerations, assumptions and arguments that those on all sides of this much-needed conversation are bringing to the table; second, I want to provide a fair yet critical assessment of what our field does and does not have to offer to broader real-world efforts to promote environmental conservation and sustainability, particularly given the nature of our current political moment around the world. Finally, I will provide my own prescription for where the field could go next as a function of our individual and collective goals and values.