Why do some hate tree huggers (costs, contract, Vermont, price)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread has generated more response than I would have expected, especially from those who prefer to not be labled "tree-hugger', 'green', environmentalist', 'conservationist', ect.
They may claim they want moderation, balance and logic, but what I see from the posts is their ire with any association that remotely ties to environmental protection. It's generated some strong emotions and a heap of exaggeration and generalization.
I believe it's largely political. Of course, slick marketing from the anti-environment side helps sell the kool-aid.
Snarky comments like " slick marketing from the anti-environment side" do not help your arguement but rather underline again the behavior that many find so distastful.
Someone who is a conservationist is a far cry from a tree-hugger(preservationist) or eco-terrorist (unlawful destruction of property). One cannot be intellectually honest and place all of the labels under the same umbrella.
Lots of derogatory terms being thrown at people who have a respect for the planet and its environment,terms like tree huggers, eco terrorists, eco nazis,whacked out hippies etc. where did this attitude come from? Why would having concern for the well being of the planet we live on incur such hate and venom toward the people who do care? I dont get it
Unlike most of the posters in this thread, I don't always think of "tree hugger" as derogatory. My wife calls me one at times, and other times I call her one. We do live in the semi-arid high plains, so we value our trees!
But my wife was born and raised in SW Oregon, and she was there to witness the forest industry's demise. It was not a pretty sight, according to her, as family after family lost homes and joined the welfare ranks when environmentalists won important decisions (i.e., spotted owl) and the major industry of the whole region came to a screeching halt. (Incidentally, she was (is?) a true hippie in every sense, but quickly learned to dislike the tree hugging "environmentalists".
We now live in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, where about 40% of all U.S. coal is mined. It's also a major producer of oil, natural gas and coal bed methane. My son depends directly on the coal mines continuing, as he works for one. Were the mines to close down, he'd quickly lose his home and have to move elsewhere. I'd lose mine too, as would most everyone in our county, because our economy is based on the energy extraction industry.
Environmental organizations, most with headquarters in major far-off cities, spend millions upon millions in lawsuits with little hope of winning most of them, but with certainty of slowing down production -- which puts workers out of work.
I'm going to make a stab at being conservatively accurate, but I can't find the recent news article I read so this isn't exact, but... I believe the stats were something like 98% of all BLM drilling permits in Wyoming are being contested in court by one environmental organization or another. That's out of more than a thousand applications. The "reasons" run the gamut. The purpose is universal and isn't a lot different than placing spikes in trees. It's to stop or slow down production of minerals (rather than trees). But it's legal.
If my kids are hungry and you're the main cause of it, I'm not going to think too highly of you, yanno?
The other thing about it is that the environmentalists who make the decisions don't usually know their posterior from a hole in the ground. They sit in their fancy offices in Washington or NYC and decide what's best for Wyoming. Or Alaska. Or Oregon. We don't care if they choose to live in a hellhole, but we don't appreciate them trying to "improve" our own environments. Residents and governments of these states are, for the most part, true conservationists. We love our country and think we know more about what's important here than does someone who's 2500 miles away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I prefer living without hunting, fishing or trapping any wild stock. If we want to eat or use animal products we should take the time and energy to farm them and let the remains of the natural system restore its own equilibrium.
The "natural system" is not what it was here a hundred or two hundred years ago. To let nature take its course would doom hundreds of species and overpopulate others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
... Mining is another sector of resource extraction that looks pretty gruesome at times, very few would choose to live in these areas of industry that do so much damage to the land....
I live in the center of the highest coal producing county in the U.S. I lived here before any major mining began and watched as several of the largest mines in the world took root and grew.
I now drive around my county and see a different countryside than what I did 30-40 years ago. The difference isn't the mines. They still don't displace much land. It's the housing that's destroyed our once beautiful prairie vistas. The "ranchettes" of 5, 10, and 40 acres. Our environment wouldn't look much different if it had been Billy Gates who established his headquarters here; it's the people -- the ones who want to be Joe Weekend Farmer and live in the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamelaBeurman
... gimme a break. Chances are my lifestyle is far more green than theirs. The only utility we use is electricity....
I've got no problem with that, but I always wonder why we seem to think electricity is so "green". But the coal that generates it is so bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miaiam
... if a guy who is a diehard meateater with a huge truck parks beside me I don't criticize, I don't preach. Even though he is not helping a planet that we share....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
... I absolutely HATE the big, junkheap diesel pickup trucks that the young bucks with too much testosterone drive around these days. To me, they are nothing but wasteful trash on wheels. But you know what? My business is what I drive, not what others drive. If someone actually asks me what I think of Ford F-1768000 diesel trucks, I'll tell them. Otherwise I'll keep my opinion to myself (other than me sharing it here )... as I should....
Hey! Watch it there guys! I happen to drive one of those "Ford F-1768000 diesel trucks". I need it for work. I also use it to pull my camper out in the sticks where we subsist for a week on the energy that's stored in two car batteries and the water that'll fill our 40-gallon tank. That's probably the equivalent energy to run your home AC for 15 minutes and enough water to take a shower and flush a toilet a couple times. And I chose diesel because it burns less fuel. I can still squeeze about 20 miles out of a gallon of fuel for that big honkin truck!
Unlike most of the posters in this thread, I don't always think of "tree hugger" as derogatory. My wife calls me one at times, and other times I call her one. We do live in the semi-arid high plains, so we value our trees!
But my wife was born and raised in SW Oregon, and she was there to witness the forest industry's demise. It was not a pretty sight, according to her, as family after family lost homes and joined the welfare ranks when environmentalists won important decisions (i.e., spotted owl) and the major industry of the whole region came to a screeching halt. (Incidentally, she was (is?) a true hippie in every sense, but quickly learned to dislike the tree hugging "environmentalists".
We now live in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, where about 40% of all U.S. coal is mined. It's also a major producer of oil, natural gas and coal bed methane. My son depends directly on the coal mines continuing, as he works for one. Were the mines to close down, he'd quickly lose his home and have to move elsewhere. I'd lose mine too, as would most everyone in our county, because our economy is based on the energy extraction industry.
Environmental organizations, most with headquarters in major far-off cities, spend millions upon millions in lawsuits with little hope of winning most of them, but with certainty of slowing down production -- which puts workers out of work.
I'm going to make a stab at being conservatively accurate, but I can't find the recent news article I read so this isn't exact, but... I believe the stats were something like 98% of all BLM drilling permits in Wyoming are being contested in court by one environmental organization or another. That's out of more than a thousand applications. The "reasons" run the gamut. The purpose is universal and isn't a lot different than placing spikes in trees. It's to stop or slow down production of minerals (rather than trees). But it's legal.
If my kids are hungry and you're the main cause of it, I'm not going to think too highly of you, yanno?
The other thing about it is that the environmentalists who make the decisions don't usually know their posterior from a hole in the ground. They sit in their fancy offices in Washington or NYC and decide what's best for Wyoming. Or Alaska. Or Oregon. We don't care if they choose to live in a hellhole, but we don't appreciate them trying to "improve" our own environments. Residents and governments of these states are, for the most part, true conservationists. We love our country and think we know more about what's important here than does someone who's 2500 miles away.
The "natural system" is not what it was here a hundred or two hundred years ago. To let nature take its course would doom hundreds of species and overpopulate others.
I live in the center of the highest coal producing county in the U.S. I lived here before any major mining began and watched as several of the largest mines in the world took root and grew.
I now drive around my county and see a different countryside than what I did 30-40 years ago. The difference isn't the mines. They still don't displace much land. It's the housing that's destroyed our once beautiful prairie vistas. The "ranchettes" of 5, 10, and 40 acres. Our environment wouldn't look much different if it had been Billy Gates who established his headquarters here; it's the people -- the ones who want to be Joe Weekend Farmer and live in the country.
I've got no problem with that, but I always wonder why we seem to think electricity is so "green". But the coal that generates it is so bad.
Hey! Watch it there guys! I happen to drive one of those "Ford F-1768000 diesel trucks". I need it for work. I also use it to pull my camper out in the sticks where we subsist for a week on the energy that's stored in two car batteries and the water that'll fill our 40-gallon tank. That's probably the equivalent energy to run your home AC for 15 minutes and enough water to take a shower and flush a toilet a couple times. And I chose diesel because it burns less fuel. I can still squeeze about 20 miles out of a gallon of fuel for that big honkin truck!
I wish I had control over how the electricity I use is generated, but I don't. Until that time comes, the best I can do is monitor our consumption.
I don't give a crap about what words come out of people's mouths.
At the end of the day what you do, the hard choices you are willing to make, define you.
People who claim to love the environment and believe in its protection but then fight every decision to protect it - yes hard decisions, decisions that will impact some people negatively - are anti-environmentalists.
What would be left if those very environmentalists that you all so love to hate weren't there to slow things down? Oregon would be a treeless prairie. Who would you blame then?
The way people and politics work is the only way to slow things down is to be a complete hardass and ask for more than you want, because your going to get half of what you need.
Snarky comments like " slick marketing from the anti-environment side" do not help your arguement but rather underline again the behavior that many find so distastful.
Someone who is a conservationist is a far cry from a tree-hugger(preservationist) or eco-terrorist (unlawful destruction of property). One cannot be intellectually honest and place all of the labels under the same umbrella.
I'm sorry you perceived this comment, "of course, slick marketing from the anti-environment side helps sell the kool-aid." as snarky. It's my opinion and I stated it in my initial post. I most certainly believe that corporations have used some very slick marketing in thier quest to lable all people who work for environmental and natural resource protection as nutcases.
It wasn't meant to be snarky, and I don't see it as snarky. If you want snarky try reading many of the anti-environmental comments on here, including your own.
As I said on a previous post, I am for eco-friendly lifestyles, and mine is one btw, however I:
1.wouldn't like to be criticized every single time I am not 100% eco-friendly;
2.would not get extremely defensive and say "if you don't act like me you are an insensitive ogre while I am an educated conscious individual;
3.wouldn't like to be told my choices are due to media influences as opposed to having my own opinion.
Being an environmentalist is a wonderful thing, however as many people would not easily socialize with "junk eaters-gas guzzlers-I couldn't care less attitude" people, others have a hard time socializing with "tofu only-hybrid only-green-only attitude" people as well.
A person who has very strong opinions about something - anything - unless one shares them all the time, is quite an annoying person to socialize with.
As I said on a previous post, I am for eco-friendly lifestyles, and mine is one btw, however I:
1.wouldn't like to be criticized every single time I am not 100% eco-friendly;
2.would not get extremely defensive and say "if you don't act like me you are an insensitive ogre while I am an educated conscious individual;
3.wouldn't like to be told my choices are due to media influences as opposed to having my own opinion.
Being an environmentalist is a wonderful thing, however as many people would not easily socialize with "junk eaters-gas guzzlers-I couldn't care less attitude" people, others have a hard time socializing with "tofu only-hybrid only-green-only attitude" people as well.
A person who has very strong opinions about something - anything - unless one shares them all the time, is quite an annoying person to socialize with.
Exactly. And, I would add, a very difficult one to take seriously at all.
A person who has very strong opinions about something - anything - unless one shares them all the time, is quite an annoying person to socialize with.
I don't think having a strong opinion about something is the problem. Neither is stating it. The problem starts when that strong opinion becomes a militant strong opinion and an attempt is made to jam it down others' throats in an emotional, frenzied crusade.
Unfortunately, our dependence on oil HAS been jammed down our throats. What is missing from many of the "I hate tree-hugger evangelism" posts here is the larger context, as measured by quantifiable metrics like tax breaks.
I'm cross-posting to give a pretty crystal-clear example (I normally loathe that) of what I'm talking about - oil companies not paying their fair share into the treasury absolutely, positively forces me & every other decent tax-paying American to make up the difference in local and state taxes.
Like an earlier poster stated, it's not what people are saying it's the problem - it's what people have been doing. "Tree hugger" extremism is a reaction to decades and decades of the environment being given zero respect by extractive industries & their shills in the government.
Markey Amendment to Recover Billions in Royalties from BP, Oil Companies in Gulf Passes Committee
Taxpayers Could Lose Up to $53 Billion Without Markey Legislation; Recovered Funds Fully Directed to Deficit Reduction
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,307 posts, read 38,701,875 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native
Unfortunately, our dependence on oil HAS been jammed down our throats. What is missing from many of the "I hate tree-hugger evangelism" posts here is the larger context, as measured by quantifiable metrics like tax breaks.
I'm cross-posting to give a pretty crystal-clear example (I normally loathe that) of what I'm talking about - oil companies not paying their fair share into the treasury absolutely, positively forces me & every other decent tax-paying American to make up the difference in local and state taxes.
Like an earlier poster stated, it's not what people are saying it's the problem - it's what people have been doing. "Tree hugger" extremism is a reaction to decades and decades of the environment being given zero respect by extractive industries & their shills in the government.
Markey Amendment to Recover Billions in Royalties from BP, Oil Companies in Gulf Passes Committee
Taxpayers Could Lose Up to $53 Billion Without Markey Legislation; Recovered Funds Fully Directed to Deficit Reduction
I don't see how this is on topic with "why some hate tree huggers" but I'm fairly certain that you don't understand what Markey is proposing. The government assigned eligibility for deferral of royalties to some operators that met certain criteria (such criteria is narrow and not sweeping). It doesn't mean that everyone drilling in the gulf of mexico pays no royalties on produced hydrocarbons and the legislation makes sense in light of the enormous risk that operators shoulder to drill in deep water and the general, international understanding of maritime law.
Also, if the Fed is losing significant tax revenues to international tax havens - that should be good indication that the Fed's taxes are too stinkin' high and it needs to compete for its money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.