Survey: Are We Too Political Or Not Enough?

A badly designed poll. It doesn't leave an option for "You are not political enough" (which doesn't necessarily imply party affiliation), but says you don't talk about politics enough. Or perhaps "you are not partisan enough"--which does imply party affiliation, and says you don't spend enough effort spearing the Republicans, who, after all, are anti-environmentalist, what ever Graham wants to fool himself by thinking.

UK politics might be a bit different, but in American politics, the Democrats are generally not awful on the environment, the Republicans are almost always awful, and some of the smaller parties are the only ones who might be considered environmentalist...

You don't have to tally how many people from each party that you criticize.

If someone says something regressive or unfounded - point out the problem respectfully and move on.

mike in denver

I think you guys do pretty well. I'm sure most Conservatives (I hate using the word 'Conserve' to describe them) you're far left, but I don't see that. Probably because I'm far left too. That said on a scale of 1-10, 1 being far left and 10 being far right I would probably put you guys at a 4 - 3.5.

Given how anti-environment the Bush regime has been I think TreeHugger has shown remarkable constraint in remaining non-partisan.

If the staff of this site takes this poll seriously, I hope my post is useful:

The "bias" isn't a political one, not in my opinion anyway, but instead an ideological one. Far more applause and support is given to mandates, laws, government subsidies, and regulations than is given to companies that innovate, create, redesign, and actually MAKE the products that allow the green revolution to occur. Solar cells, wind farms, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear power, all of that was developed by private companies. Only a very small number of minor advances have come purely from government research.

Yet, despite this, TreeHugger articles generally support legislating efficiency into existence. I would like to see more support for private sector, free market greenies like myself, who tire of seeing confused logic applied to new developments.

For the writers of this site, I would recommend two short, yet very readable books: first, "Globalization" by Donald Boudreaux, a great introduction to economic basics with a 'whole earth' twist, and second, "The Myth of the Rational Voter," which explains and exposes many many common mistakes and biases that exist among non-economists. All I ask is that you give the books an honest read. If you want to suggest a book that informs your perspective to me, I'd be happy to reciprocate.

I think you guys are doing beautifully, but then again I'm the type of person who's terrified by the above image, so my opinion might be biased to begin with.

Whats with the graphic of the United States at the top of the survey? Red States & Blue states with notable universities that are located in Blue states identified? Is there an implication that there are no notable universities in Red states? Duke, UVA, W&M, Wake Forest, Chapel Hill. The rankings suggest otherwise.

"Sometimes it is tough to restrain ourselves, with Republicans like Patrick McHenry or Michele Bachmann, but we have criticized Democratic senators pandering to big coal as well."

That sentence should answer your question. You are easily able to name names and link to articles bashing Republicans, yet you are only able to say "we have criticized Democratic senators pandering to big coal as well." Really? How about some links and some names?

Please don't change a thing.

Personally, I sometimes get carried away when on my soap box, but you don't. So keep up the good work. We will win more converts the way you approach the issue than by beating people over the head.

Politically, lets hope that the new administration and congress will take climate change more seriously. They need to get off their buts and do something before we reach the point of no return.

See, I told you I could rant with the best of them.

It is funny how personal bias may affect how we read. The Libertarian thinks TreeHugger never celebrates the green corporations and their products, choosing instead to focus only on impositions of governments.

I, on the other hand, think TreeHugger does little but celebrate the corporation, becoming, in the process a good soldier for George W's exhortation to shop our way out of crisis.

I don't think TH advocates enough--believing that products are somehow neutral. Not choosing to do anything is not choosing to do nothing. Products embody numerous beliefs and biases. Shopping is political, so why not talk about it?

Most importantly though, I don't think TH has a clear and well-stated cohesive vision. I read TH for the non-consumerist examples. If you would just state that the only thing you care about is green consumerism, I could spend my time on other blogs. I don't think we are going to have the choice to shop nearly as much as we do, whether it is green shopping or not.

I second "TheLibertarian"

the writers on this site seem to love obama while disregaurdiong mcain, hey he has some good ideas for on energy and environment too.

I believe that you are not harsh enough.

Our environment is falling apart in a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one.

An arithmetic progression is one that proceeds 1, 2, 3, 4.

We're in a geometric progression. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64...

Imagine if our environment was a pond, and lillies represent the damage being done to our environment. On day one it had one lilly pad, and on the last day it was covered in lillies.

on the day before it was completely covered, the pond would be less than half covered. We're using up our resources without figuring out what we're going to do when they are gone. We have to do more.

Little steps can contribute a lot, but not enough. We need, at this point, big steps. Or we're going to starve to death or suffocate in our own wastes long before the pond is covered.

--James Rosse

Instead of asking yourself, am I going to upset one party or the other, you should be more concerned if the article is going to give the visitor information on how to live green.

Stay away from the Fox News mindset

I think you guys do an excellent job when reporting on an issue that includes politicians and politics. (To be fair, in my mind, everything relates to politics.) I am occasionally biased, though I do my absolute best to not be. But you guys report carefully, tactfully, honestly, and without bias.

I cannot thank you enough.

Your articles are so balanced, that I feel comfortable sending them to friends & family who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from where I stand, knowing that they will not be offended or feel that I am pushing them into uncomfortable political ground.

However, I wouldn't mind if you guys reported on political issues or politicians more frequently. You do such a great job being unbiased that I would like some more unbiased reporting on who is doing good and who is doing bad. I'd love to hear more articles on legislation that is helping or harming.

Thank you again!

I have always believed that governmental and political changes come about as a result of the majority of the population changing their demands and priorities. By being too political (and aggressive) you stand to alienate the majority of people who otherwise would support you. If the majority of people change their behaviour and political and societal expectations, the government and politicians will be forced to change their political stances. A great example of this would be the now nearly-defunct SUVs. When they came out years ago, EVERYONE HAD TO HAVE ONE. Now that gasoline prices are outrageous, people cannot give them away fast enough. It all rests upon economics no matter what any supposed 'pundit' says. If you can get the majority of people interested and actively involved in going green seriously, the economic climate will change, and companies will perforce change their behaviours in order to keep selling their products and systems in national and global markets. If politicians know that the public will not allow bad behaviour, believe me they'll make necessary changes.

Well I think you guys do a fair job, but not perfect, of being fair and balanced. I don't expect perfection, so that's not a criticism.

What does bother me is the often inflammatory and derogatory posts that appear in the comments green-lit by the moderators. For those of of a crunchy-con bent who are trying get our conservative family members thinking about and discussing the issues it is not useful to point them to a a page have them scroll down and see several pages of hate-filled screed.

On more then one occasion I've e-mail a treehugger article had my father e-mail me back choice comments quotes and ask me "You can talk to these people, how exactly?"

These are political subjects certainly, because they have been polarized by the extremists in both political parties, however allowing civil discourse to devolve helps no-one.

I see the button says "Post an intelligent and civil comment" and I dearly wish I felt that was the case more often.

Most people here are reasonable here even when they disagree. That gives us a leg up on most sites.

I lean libertarian because every government in history has eventually ended up a kleptocracy.

I am a conservative, and would consider myself to be a "Crunchy Con," to borrow the term from that author's book. I have been reading this site on an (almost) daily basis for a little more than a year now.

In my opinion, there has yet to be a political party that has successfully advocated environmental conservation.

That being said, I would really prefer to read an article that advocates how other people have been successful at stirring up interest in environmental awareness in their communities.

Case in point: one commenter for your article Paper Bags or Plastic Bags? said she and her husband have begun to "...educate schools and towns in NJ on reusable bags..."

I want to read an article about her and her husband's successes in this advocation; not an article intentionally placing emphasis on the political party of so-in-so Senator to (whether intentionally or inadvertently) make a statement about that party.

Two of your articles in the past week have emphasized Republican in the headline. Yet neither article suggested to the reader about what they could do to change their elected representatives - or other "nasty evil" Republicans - minds in their own community.

Before you assume all Republicans hate bicycles, why not invite one to go riding with you?

The irony is great when you post a poll asking if you are biased and then, in the paragraph before the poll (and before anyone has said anything), take to defending yourself

I see myself as conservative, but very pro-environment. I like the informational content of many of the articles, and it's important you point out the negatives of the various politicians, even if many are Republicans. Unfortunately, the criticism and commentary on TreeHugger.com seems pointed almost exclusively at Republicans. As said, you are correct in naming politicians that are not environmentally friendly, but you really politicize it, making your party leanings very obvious. Sure, more Republicans have a bad track record with the environment, but the Democrats are not stellar, in many respects. Seriously, subsidies for Corn-based ethanol is just a 'little worse' than dropping subsidies? In most cases, you leave all your criticism for the right, and laud the left. Really, there's enough fault by either party; it's up to TreeHugger how to present it.

Regardless, even if the right is guilty 90% of the time, the goal, I would think, is about helping make people aware of the environmental dangers we're facing. You'll get a lot farther by convincing the undecided right about these serious problems, rather than always attacking the people they vote for. Think about it logically: you won't lose your left readers by not bashing the right, but certainly, you'll lose right readers that way.

And it’s not just the politicians, it’s the whole slant. Sure, you car manufacturers put out the vehicles that are a major cause of pollution, but when a company takes a major step, you’d think coverage would be optimistic and encouraging rather than bland: "Yet another “world’s largest” in solar power: General Motors has partnered with Clairvoyant Energy, Veolia Environmental and the Government of Aragon to install what will be the world’s largest rooftop solar array on its Zaragosa, Spain assembly plant."

Here are two political pieces from an archive page: “Why Do Republicans Hate Bicycles So Much?” compared to “I know that Barack Obama has the better environmental policies. I know he loves bicycles. I know he has to attract the middle American audience. But really, sponsoring a NASCAR race car?”

So, I have a question for you: are you going to choose sides, or are you - even if it's a stretch - going to try to present the problems on the environment in a dispassionate and unbiased manner, acting as the authoritative and valid news source you could be, or will you be just another left wing website?

If you want to try not to alienate readers, and more so, attract more from the right, you're heading the wrong way. Please, stop the political pollution here.