Because it's clear that Jesus's real message was, "Buy, buy, buy!"

Wow.... that's crazy. Retailers & businesses must be upset over the fact that holiday sales are lower than usual. Unfortunately they have access to the world's top media sources, making it easier for them to brainwash and deceive their readers/viewers. Corporate media.

I get SO. tired. hearing the word "sacrifice" used over and over in articles like this. I do not see how it is a "sacrifice" when a person chooses NOT to give their child brand new plastic toys because they don't want to support that industry. We vote with our dollars. Christmas is not one size fits all, it is what we present to our children, friends and family. I do not want to rack up debt because some study says the average person spends $900 on gifts every year.

"Frivolity versus severity. Materialism versus sacrifice." the article says. They will continue to think that being green means you spend a lot of time longing for things until they are shown otherwise. I remember when vegetarian = lame food, now people do not assume this.

Of course the article finds some person making clocks out of CDs which look cheesy, imho, and add to the "it's so pathetic it's cute" vibe.

we will see more backlash as time passes - change is very difficult for many people and the only way for them to cope is to lash out. This is not suprising of an article.

It's almost funny to see entrenched corporate interests such as the NYT struggle so much with new ideas such as the green revolution. I suppose that, in the 1960's, the Times ran a similar article about that annoying aunt who warned relatives that smoking could be harmful to their health.

You know what I FIND annoying, those relatives that NAG NAG NAG about how important it is that we keep buying copious quantities of gifts for everyone in the family.

As a Christian, I would rather honor the birth of Jesus by making a positive change in the world. I have suggested that we come together as a family and pay for a well to be dug in Africa, but I can't tell you how angry that made everyone. Instead of using our wealth to bring true joy to those who need it, we are going to buy more junk that none of us need and generate more waste. :'( Yeah, because that is the TRUE meaning of Christmas.

Oh yeah, if no one remembers the whole point of the original Grinch cartoon:
"It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?"

Look, like it or not, most of us live in a consumer-driven, materialistic society. So to the majority of people in America and much of the rest of the world, reducing consumption is really considered a 'sacrifice.' While I realize that buying lots of crap won't buy me happiness and is in direct conflict with the notion of sustainability on this planet, apparently lots of other people haven't figured this out yet, or just don't care.

To me, the Times story is pointing out both sides of the story: for every person who is intent on consuming less, there are many, many others who have no intention of doing anything of the sort.

I certainly don't agree with the Times 100% of the time--and I find their use of that 'expert' from the American Enterprise Institute for the article disturbing. That's why it's a great thing to have other media outlets, like Treehugger, for example. But in the Times' defense, I just don't feel that the article vilifies greenies in the harsh manner suggested above. The Grinch metaphor, although unfortunate, is not as bad as is made out to be. From the article:

"This Grinch, however, is not out to spoil Christmas, but merely to use it as a platform to advocate ecological responsibility. "

I also didn't find the article to be that negative. This style of thinking represents a radical change from the status quo, so of course it's going to meet with resistance at first.

And I totally sympathize with the sentiment anyway, because I DO feel like a Grinch, especially around the holidays. I have kids, and trying to explain to the family why we don't want more polluting plastic crap around the house is a task I try to approach delicately, but it still always seems tacky and borderline rude.

I readily admit that when I'm sending URLs to family of "approved" toys or asking for gifts to be made to charity in my name, it may be better for the environment, but it sure takes the fun out of it for the giver.

Why does everything in America have to be all or nothing? Kenneth Green may be right when he says, “The point of the holidays for many people is the joy people get in giving,” but that doesn't mean we all have to go spend $900. One considered, heartfelt gift -- store bought or not-- can give as much joy as 5 gifts bought in a rush at a crowded mall just because the items were on someone's list or that's how much the neighbors are buying. It's great when one can make gifts at home (at least half of our gifts each year are handmade and NOT lame), but even a store bought gift can be wrapped in recycled paper, or a tea towel that the recipient would be able to use later and therefore have less environmental impact than the same gift wrapped in new paper. The Grinch is right. Don't call it preachy green, call it being mindful.