I grew up in an eco-shaming household and community, and it's really an abuse of power, and doesn't work. My peer-age friends and relatives rebelled, becoming Reagan fans, rabid hunters, and anti-intellectuals. Only now are we all returning to our senses, but not out of shame, rather out of practicality, common sense, and maybe a sense of thankfulness.

Greens have great moral force behind their arguments, and they can easily abuse that high horse, out of other personality conflicts, or out of frustration.

It's very important that eco-sense be POSITIVE, that it show the way to an improved world, but it shouldn't promise a Better World.

Well put, Anonymous.

First, messages have to be fun. Make people interested by appealing to their sense of adventure and independence. SUVs are popular because ads show SUVs in wilderness or at least using a winderness approach to urban or suburban roads.

Also, it's important to appeal to people's basic needs and values. Most people prioritize keeping their family and friends safe and "successful". Play up the safety of sustainable policies, products, and services and then make them look like they will help people be more successful in life and you've got some winning PR. People wear fur and buy McManaions because they think it makes them look successful. Find a more sustainable way to show success (feelings of belongness, feelings of usefulness, ways to express talent and ability) and people will choose that as a goal insead of excess and other visible displays of wealth.

Whatever you do, don't go on and on about what you don't want. It only gives free press time to the thing you want to go away, and gives people the impression that they have to "take sides". Instead, show people how your idea covers all "sides" and works well for everyone.

Treehugger's approach--trying to make going green cool and mainstream--seems vastly preferable to sanctimoniously shaming those who fear changing traditional (read "normal") establishment attitudes.

As Anonymous stated, there is a very real tendency among many Americans to rebel against a group they see as a fringe element opposing "our God-given right to destroy the planet any way we damn well please."

If people receive a message that positively enhances instead of demolishes their self image, they're much more inclined to want to jump on the bandwagon.

As for fur--that's a tough call. The reuse approach seems preferable to the landfill option. But making recycled fur an "in" thing might lead to a greater demand for fur and completely defeat the original reuse purpose. Conundrum.

Since when is being a hunter a bad thing for the environment? Do you have a clue where a huge chunk of the money that pays for environmentalist causes comes from? Yeah, that would be hunters. Everyone I know who hunts is also an environmentalist and supports that cause. I would put the hunters contribution to the environment up against groups like peta any day of the week.

The shame issue is definitely a big one for members of the progressive community. We all see how important it is to go green, so why doesn't everyone else? It seems so obvious to us, and it can be frustrating when other people are slow to act. So we get mad. And we tell them they should be ashamed of themselves.

This is sort of true. I would be ashamed if I ate meat and drove an SUV. Those are bad things. But saying that to the face of meat-eating SUV-drivers isn't really going to accomplish anything. While it can seem slow and frustrating, being patient and kind with people who don't share our worldview is the only way to make a change.

Except with Christina Ricci, apparently.

Oh, and I'm not sure that the anonymous poster was saying that hunting was bad for the environment per se, but that it's pretty anti-progressive from an AR viewpoint.

Christina Ricci is amazing women, actress she should ne a singer. She took drugs before and she was depresed lets not disslike because of that so what everone out there is depresed and takes something bad but Christina got help good move on about that.

I havn't seen Black snake moan yet, I know it's bad to chain someone up or something but the movie looks good, Samuel L Jackson try's to help her in a really bad way but the movie will get better eventually and Christina RIcci is a amazing actress she can play anything so don't judge the movie watch it and see it come out in theaters March 2

The whole issue of whether or not to wear fur has absolutely nothing to do with "environmental" issues.
Feel free to join the local chapter of the Jainians but don't try to convince me that by not using a renewable resource made from plentiful species that require functioning eco-systems to keep on producing is a bad thing.
The average fur coat is a much more sustainable and progressive use of renewable resources than almost any other material.
Just read the comments above. It's all about the emotional reactions of the bunny hugger brigade. They even go so far as to shoot down a business and sustainable lifestyle because it might encourage the use of more sustainable fur.
The enviornment is doomed until we can get the major $$$$ animal protest industry out of the way.