Frustrating Terms: Environmental, Green, Treehugger, Eco-friendly

When I think of the terms Environmentalist, Greenie and Treehugger I get rather frustrated. I mean I know of no one who wants to drink poisoned water, eat food from poisoned land or consume meat from poisoned water and plants. So doesn’t that make us all “greenies” of some sort?

I know I for one would like to build a home utilizing the most energy and material efficient products, as well as being as energy independent as possible. I desire this not only because I wish to save monies or “save the environment”, but because this lets me help more people who are without enough energy, for whatever reason, end up with more energy available to them. I cannot help this many people any other way, I am not rich enough.

I want to grow my own fruits, nuts and vegetables because I personally do not want all the insecticides in my produce, nor do I want “genetically” altered or non-open pollinated items. I am a meat eater and want my meat, dairy and poultry produce to be a free of hormones, antibiotics and other human induced chemicals. I happen to be horribly allergic to red dye. I can only purchase certain meats from slaughter houses that do not inject the red dye prior to slaughter. I am also allergic to quite a few synthetic antibiotics so I cannot consume animals or products from animals that have been injected with these chemicals. I also have a food allergy to soy, so no meat substitutes please.

I love wood, natural wood. It is durable and beautiful too. I love wildlife and believe that we humans need biodiversity to help this planet sustain our human lives. This does not mean that I believe in an “all or nothing” approach to forests, plant and animal life vs. our human needs. Rather I see solutions that help everything – like managed forests where selected trees are harvested.

This opens grazing space for deer, elk and other animals and makes them healthier, as well as leaving enough trees available for animals like the spotted owl that is losing its habitat – all while still providing us humans with our wood for building things and jobs. This method is also lends itself to reduce erosion (land and mud slides) as well as saves the lumbering industry the expense of re-planting a forest. Since with a thinned forest, nature re-plants for free. And, ultimately this gives us humans a perpetual forest that is sustainable at a low cost.

Since we humans tend to ignore or avoid “unpleasant” signs, how do we honestly think setting up “parceled plots” in the sea will save aquatic wildlife? If these animals can’t migrate as nature intended then we will not see the danger signs that can alert us to a major problem in the sea. Are we humans so greedy and selfish that we cannot limit our consumption of the sea’s riches so that the sea can continue to perpetually supply us with these items?

I also get rather frustrated and perplexed when I hear the terms “Environmentalist, Greenie and Treehugger” used in marketing and advertising. Since I believe that there is good and bad in all things, I see the marketing and advertising of these terms to be the bad side – or more often than not “green washing”.

I mean, how can that “certified managed lumber” from Brazil be “green” when 10 years ago that forest was old growth rain forest and the lumber has to be shipped to the U.S. for our use? How can granite, slate, marble and sandstone be called “natural and environmentally friendly” when the quarries that these rocks come from generate as much if not more, greenhouse gasses as coal mining and are even more polluting since quarries do not have to be “reclaimed” like strip mines do and as they collect water in them the water is polluted with minerals, metals and chemicals? How can “organic earth friendly” materials and products be labeled “green” or “LEED Certified” when they are shipped from across the U.S. or even from other countries, even though the item is available nearby? How can a product be called “natural” when it has been saturated with human induced chemicals either directly or indirectly? Not to mention that it is then shipped all over the U.S. before purchase/consumption?

How can marketing and advertising promote products that are overpriced just because they are made of “natural” or recycled materials? How “green” are all these “eco-friendly”, environmental and “green” organizations, companies and entities making MEGA bucks off these very same products? Why is it that the U.S. government is screaming “environmentalism” yet is the greatest polluter in our country? And just how “green” is the U.S. government when it institutes rules, regulations and laws that are to help our environment and yet when you read their studies, they do not – they only make the government bigger and richer? How can the U.S. government say it is trying to preserve nature and then it digs it up or cuts it down or pollutes it beyond human, yet alone animal and plant use, while making MEGA bugs, be considered “eco-friendly”?

How can “environmentalists”, “greenies” be considered eco-friendly as they promote vegitarism when the we don’t have enough fertile farmland to feed the world population as it is?

Why is “reduce, reuse, recycle” considered something new, when humans have been doing this for centuries?

To me all these contradiction of actions verses words are caused by entities that are NOT concerned about sustainability of our world, but rather with their own power, control and monies; and they are using marketing and advertising as the number 1 tool to “pull the wool over our eyes” to accomplish this for them.

So much on this planet is finite as far as we humans are concerned. Our life spans and our existence so far on this planet make many items finite. From the fossil fuels causing all the debates, to the stones, minerals and metals we harvest from quarries and mines – these are all finite. Yet we ignore some while crying over others and all the while we carry on like the supplies are never ending and we deserve them no matter what. Then we let infomercials, politicians, officials, famous and infamous people tell us to consume, use and toss, purchase the product with the most packaging and “latest and greatest” aspect. To what end do we do this?

How many of us know how or what it takes to grow our produce, raise the meat, make that sock or shoe, cut that tree and turn it into lumber, weave that cloth and turn it into a coat?

I believe that just about ALL humans are basically environmental we have just let our civilizations trick us into believing that we are not and for the wrong reasons. I don’t believe in extremes and I include the exact middle as an extreme. Solutions to me come from somewhere between those three extreme points.

So the next time we read a label or tag; hear a speech or see a commercial; STOP and THINK so we can avoid REACTING to the physiological button pushing and ACT on facts instead.

“On a large enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”
Chuck Palahniuk

From a 50 Something, soon to be rural homesteading, Prepper ;-}