Friday Funny – 'tree hugging' taken to the extreme

Some days you just have to wonder about the sanity of environmentalists, today is one of those days. The photo below, Twittered by PBS station KQED in San Francisco, would be considered “not safe for work” not only just for the content, but for the facts these lunatics used a child to further their goal. Use of children by unhinged environmentalists in protests is something we are seeing more and more of these days, such as we recently saw in Canada when Ezra Levant  was asked by a parent to interview their child holding a sign. The parent then went on an online rant about it.

As for Berkeley, the Daily Caller writes:

Activists at the University of California at Berkeley got naked on Saturday to show their love for nearby trees that authorities are planning to cut own.

About 50 people showed up at a grove of eucalyptus trees on the campus of UC-Berkeley, stripped off their clothes, and began to intimately interact with the trees in the grove for the benefit of photographer Jack Gescheidt.The nudity was organized by Gescheidt as part of his Tree Spirit Project, an effort to create fine art photographs by, well, taking pictures of naked people while they cavort about in nature. The project’s website describes it as an attempt to “raise awareness of the critical role trees play in our lives, both globally and pesonally [sic].”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/tree-huggers-at-berkeley-get-naked-with-trees/#ixzz3gpYKvK3h

https://twitter.com/KQED/status/622901409361604608/photo/1

Gotta love the grandma type who didn’t think getting naked was such a good idea, but hugged the tree anyway. What these clueless enviros seem to miss, is that eucalyptus trees are non-native to California, and are considered invasive:

Since the 1850s,Californians had assisted a continuous introduction of eucalypts punctuated by two frenzied periods — one in the 1870s,the other from 1907 to 1913.Planters believed variously that eucalypts would provide fuel,improve the weather,boost farm productivity,defeat malaria,preserve watersheds,and thwart a looming timber famine. First and foremost,however,Californians planted the trees to domesticate and beautify the landscape,to make it more green.

California has been trying to get rid of them for years, due to their extreme fire hazard which ironically, KQED has also reported on:

KQED-eucalyptus

 

Advertisements

230 thoughts on “Friday Funny – 'tree hugging' taken to the extreme

      • Glad I don’t live in the flats [not really the wilds, is it?].
        Cascade of cold soda water, perhaps?
        Auto

      • I thought the one right foreground might be me. But I don’t have a current passport.
        But eucalypts are not called ‘widow-makers; for nothing, Beware falling limbs.

        • FINALLY!!! An accurate criticism of (some) Eucalypts! Yes, they do drop branches a LOT more than other species. Although if you keep a regular lookout, you can usually see the branch dying weeks before it bashes your car (or head) to a pulp.

    • The gesture was caused by an old man telling the sincere environmentalists a joke they didn’t get.
      Putting on a deadpan expression and a fake Australian accent, he told them the natives of Australia had lore of how the Eucalyptus got its name. Then he looked at the trees thoughtfully. Only when the environmentalists begged did he explain:
      The native’s lore told that long, long ago Eucalyptus did not have bark, but rather grew curls of long, golden hair. The trees grew so vain that the Creator had to do something, so he shaved them while they were asleep. When they woke they exclaimed, “You clipped us!”, and that became their name.
      After telling the the environmentalists this balderdash the old man nodded with round eyes, and added that in a wind you can see the “You-clipped-us” tree’s leaves shaking, because they are so cold.
      After the old man walked away the environmentalist became indignant about the Creator’s cruelty, and decided to show solidarity with the trees. They are hugging the trees to keep them warm. Please observe all have shaved their bodies.

  1. Could that be considered child pornography? Sure doesn’t seem to be any artistic merit to the picture.

  2. Any news yet on whether the trees have been impregnated and harvested by Planned Parenthood?

  3. Unfortunately they’re called “environmentalists” when nothing could be further from the truth. Most of them have absolutely no understanding of ecology or even basic biology, and do things based on a Bambi-like notion of the world. Fortunately they’re no match for a trusty Stihl MS 880 Magnum, with 24 inch bar and full-chisel chain.

      • It can be done with a 24 if you’re willing to live with a lot of cracks and splinters at the point of the hinge wood, (not cool if you’re trying to get nice saw logs) I’ve Never cut a Eucalyptus, so I have no clue how they behave, but the 24 inch bar makes you so much more nimble when you’re working around tree huggers.

      • I gave a hitchhiker a ride on Vancouver Island who with three other guys cut down a 16ft diameter cedar tree with 60″ bars. Took them four days. The trick is to cut out a four ft high slice so you can get inside.

        • Imagine when they used to do it all with hand saws!
          Fun fact: the first chainsaws took two men to operate, and were electric.

    • Old Calfire friend refers to the Eucalyptus as the :”Australian gasoline tree” .
      Re: Oakland Hills fire….

      • Not good in your fireplace or steam engine either. The high amount of oil in the wood causes rapid creosote build-up which in turn can lead to flue fires. Flue fires are difficult to extinguish which means that the burning of your home will release excess CO2 leading us ever closer to CAGW and all sorts of tipping points unless you tip the euc. into your nearby composting pile thus avoiding the entire problem.

        • Burning any green wood will cause creosote build up.
          Never fear, Nanny almost never allows us to burn wood anymore anyway…

      • RayG: eucalypt is used almost exclusively for firewood in Aus. Not many flue fires. Just need to get a sweep in once every couple of years and/or throw on one of those little burn bags which break down the creosote every so often. Most flue fires are associated with vermin infesting the flue.

      • Re flue fires, quick solution grab 1/2 gal of water throw on the fire in the fireplace in small amounts about a cup at a time but do not put out the fireplace , it causes steam and puts out the fire in the chimney
        ( steam causes a lack of 02 as it sucks up the chimney)

        • 1. Trees don’t create fires, since they can’t generate sparks or use butane lighters or drive cars with catalytic converters or build campfires or use fireworks.
          2. All species of trees CAN burn if the conditions are right, and become fuel in a fire. Eucs aren’t the volatile oil champions. Theirs are just more fragrant to our relatively underdeveloped noses.
          3. Many types of tree survive and benefit from rapid moving wildfires that don’t linger long enough to bake the trees to death. Redwoods, sequoias, probably any tree in a forest, where there is competition for sunlight.
          4. It almost always a mistake to say “X evolved because of Y.” Things are rarely that simple.

      • Firefighters can be wrong, too, tgm. 🙂
        Its a very simple cognitive error. Eucalyptus trees burned by the thousands in the Oakland Hills Fire BECAUSE THEY WERE THE TYPE OF TREE THAT WAS THERE. Any species of tree in those circumstances would’ve done the same. Check out any other of the hundreds of wildfires that happen in an average year in the US. None involve Eucs.
        The Oakland hills fire wasn’t caused or exacerbated by the particular species of tree that comprised the forest. It started in grass and litter, and became a disaster because of all sorts of human error.
        If all greenery nationwide were replaced with asphalt, I imagine the number of wildfires would shrink drastically…

      • takebackthegreen- create the ‘large’ rather than the ‘fire’. Nobody claims that they spontaneously combust.
        “since they can’t generate sparks or use butane lighters or drive cars with catalytic converters or build campfires or use fireworks.” Our fires start mostly by fire bugs, farm equipment and more likley by glass bottles than the last two.
        97% consensus here in Aus that the large amount of oil in the leaves gives the tree an evolutionary advantage by making the fires larger. Not my theory. There is evidence that when Australia was still mostly lush vegetation that eucalypts cut out niches where fire was common and then spread out as fires became more common in a drying climate. Part of the evidence is the regrowth. The pine plantations in last years fires are dead. The eucalypts bounced back within half a year. Its an amazing sight. (major one started by a glass bottle focussing light on litter.)

        • I agree Robert. Adaptation to fire is an amazing thing. And I agree that some trees make better firewood than others. Unfortunately it is usually the same trees that are good for woodworking.
          We can only speculate what actual difference the particular species makes when a fire has reached the critical conditions necessary to travel through green canopy. Pine vs. Euc vs. Laurel vs. Cedar vs. Fir. etc. So many factors to consider and so few ways to study them.
          It remains my unproven conjecture that at that point, the only significant difference would be between forest and no forest. If you have a forest on fire, its composition probably ranks near the bottom of your concerns.
          Hey, at least when the Earth incinerates in five years because of CO2, the Eucs will be ready…. 🙂

      • Being an Aussie and living in the state of Victoria I have been in three major bush fires. Two of them were during drought conditions, eucalypts in these conditions when burning and high winds are involved give of huge quantities of flammable gas. This creates fire balls that can travel a mile or more and when they land on more trees the trees explode rather than burn, the branches are just blown off. If they land on a house it explodes like a bomb hit it.
        Seen it all, California needs to do some serious pruning, to protect a house three rows of Pinus Radiata grown three years apart to form a ramp makes the fire balls go over your house. The other cure is cut down all the Eucalypts within a hundred yards of your house. Then pray. Wayne

    • I cannot help but wonder how many of these who care so much for the trees live in wood frame houses, sit on wood furniture and picnic benches, play wooden pianos, violins, violas and bass fiddles. Do they also stand in front of and admire wooden sculptures, large and small? Where does all this wood come from? Trees, of course, which have been felled by men to fill the desires of ‘tree huggers’ and other ‘ecologists’.

      • Q: What’s a violin good for?
        A: Lighting a viola.
        Q: What’s the difference between a violin and a viola?
        A: A viola burns longer.
        Q: What do a violist’s fingers have in common with lightning?
        A: They never strike the same place twice…
        (Apologies from the land where there’s always room for cello)…

    • Most of them have absolutely no understanding of ecology or even basic biology, and do things based on a Bambi-like notion of the world.
      Actually, the book was pretty stark and nasty.

  4. You have to be from the “everyone gets a trophy” generation to think that will produce fine art photography.

  5. It is possible to think about a naked bottom as symbolizing innocence or babyhood or helplessness. In this photo, the symbolism is quite different, showing a desire to dominate and influence others into doing things they otherwise might not do. The child in the midst of the adults seems to show the innocence; obviously she [assuming the gender here] is under others’ influence and would never expose herself like this on her own. Innocence [lack of guilt] is sometimes confused with ignorance [lack of knowledge]; the child seems to exhibit the former, the adults the latter, all in the service of a mistake.

  6. Aunt of mine planted her Christmas tree after the holidays but 20 years later it’s height worried her. She needed to ask for municipal authorization to fell it but that was refused by someone who informed her that she should be ashamed of herself for wanting to cut down the native trees….. huh??

  7. I was in New Zealand many years ago and had the occasion to talk with locals about invasive species. They were at war with introduced rabbits who because there were no natural predators did what rabbits do and became pests.
    On the lighter side I talked with some hikers who carried spray bottles of herbicides while they hiked to kill pine trees–an introduced species. A nearby area was famous for its fall colors due to introduced species. I asked why kill pine trees but support poplar trees and related species which were also introduced?
    The nature of the reply boiled down to this. Pine trees were introduced to provide harvestable timber of commercial value for construction, etc., but the deciduous trees were ok because they were pretty but had no economic value.
    I didn’t understand it then and I do not today.

  8. Sorry, I stopped reading at “Berkeley”…although I probably should have stopped at “University”.
    BTW, some Animal Liberation Front types have released thousands of minks from mini farms here in Ontario, Canada the last few weeks.
    If this goes like all the other “rescues” of minks, most will die of starvation, but only after killing everything they can find they can think of as food. Like pets. Sorry, “companion animals”.

    • Drove over to Burlington, VT yesterday – lovely and actually a warm day,for a change. Berzerkly East. Walking about, the gals were showing their wares. I kept saying, “wow, wow – reminds me of Cambridge sex, drugs, and rock n roll way back in 60’s”. My daughter (yup, and doing grad work in physics besides) kept telling me, “think of the baggage, think of the baggage”. As I am so much more mature now (heh), I said to her, “just watch how many I hook by hugging this tree …” Good thing we had the attack dog along.
      And this was a testable hypothesis! ah, science
      Happy Friday

    • Yup that happened in Surrey uk for many years a whole area was devoid of small mammals and few birds!

  9. Pity they weren’t hugging the trees that are cut down,pulverised, tuned into pellets, then shipped across the Atlantic to give us Brits “green” electricity.a couple of the protesters might be good for a kW hour or so

    • Or hugging Malaysian rainforest trees that are to be clear cut for palm oil production for “renewable” fuels.
      Meanwhile a huge furor erupts from the eco-left when a small area of trees is removed for a fracking pad or mine entrance or supermarket.
      So who are currently responsible for the most forest destruction?
      Capitalists or environmentalists? I’d like to see the figures.
      It must be a close run race, these days!!

  10. Here are two summaries of Eucalyptus trees in California.
    http://www.gardenguides.com/120712-eucalyptus-tree-history.html
    http://www.elcajonhistory.org/pdf/eucalyptus_trees.PDF
    One of the reasons for importing them was for railroad ties. Problem was that they wouldn’t hold the spikes. Hard to drive, but you could pull the spikes out with your fingers.
    “Eucalyptus Bust
    “The Central Pacific Railroad, after planting nearly one million eucalyptus trees in 1877 and 1878, discovered that eucalyptus railroad ties, posts and poles spit, twisted and cracked, unlike products made from the older eucalyptus trees in Australia.”

    • They probably grew too fast in Calilala land compared to Australia, thus not a very compact growth ring construction.

      • You are correct, Pamela.
        Eucalypts were also planted to provide tree cover in areas that were almost devoid of trees. Yes, people settled a City and landscaped it from scrub grass to thriving forests. Much better, IMHO.

        • Hans: Another myth. Many types of trees and shrubs (including California “native” Claro Walnut) secrete hormones that inhibit the growth of some types of plants. But the undergrowth in our Euc forests is thick and thriving. Want pictures?

      • they will be fine the timber of Euc’s is fine even if it grows fast.
        We in New Zealand rotate them on 25 years and they are very good timber.

      • When I worked in Ethiopia 25 years ago, the Development Banks were talking about funding to remove Eucalyptus that had been introduced. But it grows like a weed so once introduced, it seems it is very difficult to eradicate. Plus the native forests around Addis Ababa had been mostly cut down to make charcoal and the fast growing Eucalyptus made a very good fast growing replacement. Hundreds of people worked every day hauling Eucalyptus branches into the city for fuel. Not an issue for the locals.

      • takebackthegreen:
        Not a myth, some plants are intolerant to the oil in the eucalyptus leaf mulch.

        • You are correct that some Eucalyptus species exude a growth inhibiting hormone. My point was that Eucalyptus is far from the only type of plant that does this. The best known “native” example of the exact same phenomenon is Black Walnut. Juglone is the hormone.
          This is an example of withholding part of a story to propagandistically demonize an entire genus.

      • Red Ironbark (Euc sideroxylon) is also one of the most beautiful woods around. The bark looks like lava in cross section.
        In fact you Aussies sent all kinds of incredible wood our way… Black Acacia, Lemon Gum… why didn’t we get any Jarrah trees? I’ve only ever seen one small turning blank of Huon Pine and “Wow” is an understatement. There is a single Huon Pine in a private yard here that makes my 460 Magnum itch…
        What were we talking about?

    • A huge amount of eucalyptus trees were planted in California as wind blocks for agriculture…In long, straight rows to cut down the wind on the fields.

    • laughing..yes we use gum for sleepers, and fenceposts and all sorts BUT theyre slowgrowing rock hard to cut n work REDGUM. the old sleepers they ripped up after many decades of use on rail lines got reused if tidy as garden edges in many homes parks etc
      and the semi rotting n split ones got used for firewood in many homes.
      Im grab the odd one at the tip for garden or fire even now
      theyd have to be over 70 yrs old in many instances.
      excellent hot burning clean firewood and very little ash

    • Please! The human mind can only process so much. Mann in the nude is beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend. Or, of the stomach to retain food.

  11. Every species is “invasive”, supposedly. Especially humans. The whole concept has become an absurdity.

    • A botanist friend once told me “any plant, even a rose bush, is technically a weed if its growing somewhere its not wanted”.

  12. A s a wise man once sed: “There’s your Sign”
    His friend: “If you get naked to be photographed hugging invasive species trees in an effort to save them from being cut down – you might be a redn…… I mean, IDIOT”

    • Bill Engvall – “Here’s your sign.”
      Jeff Foxworthy – “You mignt be a … ”

  13. It is believed that the eucalypt trees were introduced accidentally by returning Californian gold miners who went to Australia in quest of the riches they missed at Sutters Mill. The huggers should make the trip to Oz they could copulate to their hearts content with the billions of trees here,
    We don’t mind, always space for another nutter or three

    • This is also why they were introduced to South Africa. When they take load and begin to fail (i.e. when the roof is about to fall in), they make a squeaking noise, thus giving the miners warning. This is a very useful property not found in other timbers. In coal mines, when modern forms of steel roof support were introduced, the old timers would still install “squeaker props” in strategic spots to provide warning.

  14. The Oakland Hills fire in the ’90’s was fueled by groves of them; —AND they’ve been eradicating them as fast as Oakland can; or dare?—-lol

    • Nope. Urban myth. Not the fault of the Eucalypts. Very complex issue.
      Simple answer: yes, there would be less fire hazard if everything green were replaced by asphalt, but Eucalypts are not a problem.

      • Eucalyptus are a firestorm. The oil in Eucaluptus leaves evaporates in hot weather leaving a oily haze in the air. If there is a fire this oil ignites in advance of the fire front. Scary when there is a breeze let alone a decent wind blowing. Also Eucalyptus trees drop a large amount of litter on the forest floor creating a beautiful fire starter. So sorry but Eucalyptus are the problem.

        • Steve: I respectfully suggest you read other sources on the issue and question what you know. Eucalypts are no more or less a fire hazard than other trees. All trees drop leaves, which dry out and become easy fire fuel. No trees ignite easily. Try it sometime. Would you like me to find the link to an East Bay wildfire that leveled an entire subdivision without burning a single Eucalyptus tree, which were mere feet away from the incinerated houses?
          The sense of smell leads to all kinds of delusions. Eucalypts have a strong scent that smells vaguely like kerosene. Must be explosive. And toxic. RUN!

      • Indeed many (most?) eucy species require fire for germination. The nuts are opened by the heat of the fire. The green regrowth soon after a bushfire in Oz is something to behold.

        • “Require” and “benefit from” are not the same, Woz.
          Some arguments disprove themselves: If Eucalypts are invasive and require fire to reproduce, and there are no Euc fires, how can Eucs reproduce and invade?

      • Not a problem?, tell that to the home owners who have lost their homes in Scripps Ranch San Diego. Damm fire was like a bomb going off.

      • At our first house there was one in the garden planted by the previous owner right over the main drain! Grew very fast and took several years of heavy “pruning” to get rid of it. burning the stuff was no problem as even the freshest cut branches burned readily on the bonfire in a loud and hot fireball. The dried leaves went like a bomb in a few seconds, great fun for the children to watch but not so much to be near.
        James Bull

      • Takeback, Please share your source. While I agree with your statement that any tree would have burned under the circumstances, I want to know why you claim the eucalyptus has no more propensity to burn. I believe it does but if you can show me otherwise, please do. On the day of the Oakland fire the conditions for an uncontrollable burn were as perfect as could be: high temperature, high wind and a lot of fuel. Similar conditions in Colorado (East Peak Fire) and the big burns in Yellowstone burned as completely as the Oakland fire. Under those conditions any fuel source would ignite and sustain. However, I believe the eucalyptus produces volatile and flammable compounds that make it more likely to ignite. If you have information to the contrary, please share.

        • If I read your comment correctly, I agree with everything you said.
          Why do I say the Eucs have no greater propensity to burn? I’m too lazy to look up any numbers other than the ones I have in memory: California Bay Laurel volatile oil percentage: ~15%. Eucalypts volatile oil percentage (average): ~4-5%.
          My point is: unless someone undertakes a very difficult and expensive set of controlled experiments, it’s not possible to quantify with any accuracy how flammable any species of tree is. How do you even define the terms you use to design the experiment? What are the conditions? Why choose those conditions? Ad nauseum…
          So… you take a step back and try to make statements that can be useful without proof. Such as
          –There are a certain number of tree species that are less flammable than Eucalyptus species. There are a certain number that are more flammable.”
          –Under ideal lab conditions, the range of flammabilities might be measurable.
          –Under the conditions of a high-wind wildfire, the range of flammability ratings would almost certainly be insignificant compared to difference between 1) the flammability of trees in general 2) ALL OTHER FUELS, such as grass, brush, homes, creosote-soaked telephone and electrical poles, etc. and 3) complete removal of all vegetation.
          Do you get what I mean? Eliminate all the trees and replace with grass and shrub: possibly different fire outcome, although offset by higher number of fires due to grass flammability, much more rapid spread of fire, unpredictable fire travel. The type of tree isn’t significant.

  15. It was reported that the big expansion of Eucalyptus in California followed the notion that the fast growing trees could be processed into railroad ties for Standford and Crocker. Except the spiral core tree won’t process into useful lumber for anything more than a novelty.

      • And as Pamela explained above, the conditions here were too ideal, causing the trees to grow too rapidly to provide tight-ringed, more stable wood. Plus the Railroad barons did not educate themselves on proper seasoning techniques.

  16. Reminds me of a Mother Goose and Grimm cartoon where Grimmy (a dog) is walking out of the Adult Dog Store with an inflatable leg.

  17. It really says it all… not the nude protest, but the fact they’re protesting about an imported pest that is a real danger.
    Eucalyptus tree absolutely require fire to propagate. During summer, that lovely eucalyptus smell is the tree saturating the air with flammable oils, just waiting for the right fire to come alone. Once the fire comes, the eucalyptus seed is able to burst and drop onto the ground, where there is now an abundant supply of food.
    Eucalyptus fires flash across the treetops, and are generally over with quite quickly. The big problem comes when ground litter is allowed to build up: the tree can easily survive a crown fire, but if the trunk starts burning the tree can be killed.
    Australian environmentalists have caused so much damage to the ecology because of their misguided principles. By actively preventing back-burning, they ensure that when a fire takes hold it’s so much more destructive. And as for the poor animals that get swept up in it all… most can either get out of the way or burrow down and allow it to pass overhead. Those that don’t make it… natural selection at work.
    Non-environmentalists cause problems, too: by actively building into the bush, then kicking up a ruckus when back-burning is considered, they are condemning their homes to fire.
    But I digress: if you’re worried about bush-fires, eucalyptus trees are the last thing you plant. Protesting to save them is the height of stupidity.

    • Most of what you say here is wrong. The highlights: Eucs don’t require fire to reproduce and spread. They have a lower volatile oil content than other California “native” trees.
      Wildfire prevention IS a problem, but isn’t the fault of any particular tree species.
      Trees don’t start wildfires. GRASSES do. Lightening strikes, cigarettes, car exhaust, campfires. Trees contain too much moisture to easily burn until a wildfire is already raging, at which point EVERYTHING is fuel. Including you and your home.
      You don’t have to be a tree hugger to like shade on a hot day, tree-lined streets and the occasional tire swing.

      • With all due respect, I suggest you read up about Eucalyptus trees. I don’t know about the oil content of the trees cf. Californian natives, but the trees do require fire (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire).
        A key point from the referenced article:

        Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable (ignited trees have been known to explode); bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns. Eucalypts obtain long-term fire survivability from their ability to regenerate from epicormic buds situated deep within their thick bark, or from lignotubers, or by producing serotinous fruits.

        The whole point of a crown fire it that it is super-fast to spread but does minimal damage.

        • Neil:
          1. You site Wikipedia as a reference.
          2. Use logic. Do the wildfires that rip through the non-California West involve Eucalypts? No. Trees CAN BE fuel; but they don’t start the fires and aren’t “responsible” for the fires. Eucs are no different from any other type of tree.

      • I don’t know about eucalypts specifically needing fire for reproduction, but they certainly are very well adapted to regenerate afterwards. Many other Australian plant species do require fire for reproduction (Banksia, Hakea, grass trees etc).
        And they certainly do produce a lot of volatile oils. The Blue Mountains just west of Sydney are named because of the blue haze from these oils.
        The bulid up of fuel in the understory is a huge issue, but my understanding is this is because it allows the fire to become a large, raging canopy fire, rather than a smouldering undergrowth fire.

      • And Neil, the crown fires do by far the most damage and take the most lives. Once a crown fire starts, its like a chain reaction. A few years back we lost 173 people and 2000 homes on a single day.

      • plantation pines would be my pick for nasty, followed by the idiot bluegum plantations..though they are at least trimmed a bit.
        and the worst offenders are usually human firebugs lighting them
        more of them than lightning strikes id say.
        and yeah understory is where it starts
        so of course the greentards got grazing Banned! in major hilly mountain areas where the need to thin it is the most urgent..and they cry rivers over the tree n animal loss they were the bloody cause of!!

        • Hey ozspeaks. Haven’t heard of plantation pine. Is it a true pine? Or like Huon Pine, which isn’t really a pine, but produces one of the world’s best woods?
          Btw, we don’t just mistreat Eucalypts here… Black Acacia in the landscape is called a trash tree and cut down along freeways and everywhere it appears. When the exact same species (A. melanoxylon) is imported, it’s called Tasmanian Blackwood and sells for upwards of $15/bdft, or $6/lb green.

      • It is irritating when someone rejects solid information:
        ” In contrast a eucalyptus forest tends to promote fire because of the volatile and highly combustible oils produced by the leaves, as well as the production of large amounts of litter which is high in phenolics, preventing its breakdown by fungi and thus accumulates as large amounts of dry, combustible fuel.[22] Consequently, dense eucalypt plantings may be subject to catastrophic firestorms. In fact, almost thirty years before the Oakland firestorm of 1991, a study of eucalyptus in the area warned that the litter beneath the trees builds up very rapidly and should be regularly monitored and removed.[23] It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire was due to eucalyptus.[24] In a National Park Service study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre) of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as great as native oak woodland.[24]”
        wiki is generally useful unless climate hacks mess with it.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Fire_hazard

        • hunter, it’s also irritating when people can’t think critically.
          Question: WHY did Eucalypts provide the fuel for the fire? Think about it.
          (Hint: I don’t know what kind of trees burn in gigantic wildfires in Idaho or Montana; but it ain’t Eucalyptus.)
          Answer: Because that’s the kind of tree that was THERE. It could’ve been apple trees or lollipop bushes. 100 mph winds. No fire hydrants. Narrow roads. Years of uncleared brush. Panicked drivers blocking fire crews and evacuating citizens. Delayed calls for mutual aid.
          It’s much easier to blame the trees, right?
          Cut down the Euc forest and let grass grow in its place. In a drought. Hillsides covered in dry grass instead of watery trees. MUCH safer.
          Also, what were the other devastating euc-fueled wildfires that have struck the Bay Area in the last 100 years? Hmmmm…
          If you want to eliminate risk, eliminate all vegetation. Pave it over. WAIT, San Francisco burned to the ground in 1906 and was as close to vegetation-free as you can get. They must have been THINKING about Eucalyptus! RUN!

  18. Well you covered all the bases. Non native weed. Check. Screws up the natural environment. Check.
    Fire hazard especially in dought years. Check.
    Nothing left to say really, except got a light?

    • No no no. These trees need to come down because the campus needs to expand. Simple.
      All Eucalypts don’t need to come down. You are arguing on the side of the extreme environmentalists I would guess you don’t agree with normally…

      • Oh is that all? The naked tree huggers are doing the public a favor then, because Berkeley is already bloated and prohibitively expensive with a piss poor state approved product to boot.

      • Expanding the campus will permit granting degrees to increasing hordes of idiot academic intellectuals “educated beyond their intelligence” and useful only for teaching social science drivel.

        • Undoubtedly.
          But remember that decent smart and valuable people will also emerge.

  19. OH NO! WUWT is (I hope) unintentionally playing into the hands of cutting edge misguided environmentalists.
    The trees under discussion do need to come down for the very logical reason that UC Berkeley needs to expand its campus. If the article ended at that point, it would be fine.
    The rest of the article is the problem. It puts WUWT firmly in the far, far left, scientifically illiterate Native Plant movement. I’ll try to be brief, and urge you to research the issue further, hopefully editing the post.
    1. Eucaplypts are NOT a fire hazard. This is a myth. “Native” Bay Laurels have an average of 15% volatile oils compared to 3-4% for Eucalypts. Almost all “forest” fires are started by GRASS and shrubbery. Trees, as a category, don’t burn easily. They can be fuel, like almost anything, but contain too much moisture to easily ignite. GRASS is the fire hazard. Dry, brown grass which covers most of the land here in the SF Bay Area.
    2. Eucalypts have been here in California longer than any living person, more than a century. They are native for all practical purposes. They thrive in the climate and provide forests, which “native” California lacked. There is no going back to scrub grass and a few gnarly oaks and laurels. Even if there were such a thing as a restoration, who would want to eliminate already scarce trees from our urban environment?
    Here in San Francisco, we have two mountains which have become a rare and beautiful type of ecosystem: Cloud Forests. The native plant activists want to clear-cut these forests and try to re-establish scrub grass. It will destroy the landscape and won’t restore viable vegetation. The plans are NOT based on science. They use the same arguments used in this article, plus the pseudosciences of “biodiversity” and “invasion biology.” Except in rare cases of actual economic damage, “invasion biology/native plant ideology” is NOT based on science. It is a GARDENING preference that got picked up by misguided environmentalists with too much time on their hands.
    If these brief points don’t convince you of the inaccuracy of this article, perhaps this argument will work: this article will definitely be cited by the furthest “left” environmentalists in San Francisco, and do great damage to the science-based efforts of individuals like myelf to CONSERVE our urban landscape as the activists attempt to return it to an ugly, pre-industrial state.
    WUWT has officially posted an article that aligns it with the “Humanity is the Problem” crowd. Please reconsider. Even if you don’t prefer Eucalypts. They aren’t all scraggly Blue Gums. They are some of the most beautiful trees (and wood!) on Earth.
    (I’m not taking the time to add citations, because I hope to derail this post before it gains traction. They are available however. )

    • Eucalypts have been here in California longer than any living person, more than a century. They are native for all practical purposes.

      By that argument, so are all the introduces species in Australia: cane toads, rabbits, foxes etc. But that doesn’t mean it’s a reason to keep them. An invasive species is an ivnasive species.
      HOWEVER: you do bring up an important point regarding propaganda in all of this. There is obviously much more going on than at first blush.

      • Carp in the US are also an invasive species.
        I wonder how many extinctions have been caused by invasive species that “are native for all practical purposes”?

        • I wonder that also, GD. Not relevant to Eucalypts, though. They aren’t carp. Also, 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Zero of these extinctions were due to Eucalypts…

      • Neil:
        Yes. Thanks for seeing that. Propaganda is made up of plausible little bits stitched together for a purpose.
        There is a difference between HARMFUL “invasives” and non-harmful. My part of California was mostly scrub grass and sand dunes. Cities completely overwrote nature long ago. What we have left are preferences.
        “Native” is a very relative term. Earth: 4.5B years old. Humans and Eucalypts: somewhat younger. 🙂
        Some people hate Eucs. All I’m saying is stop pretending there is any science involved. It is a preference and nothing more. I can have that discussion all day long.

      • Certainly that rationale ends the argument about Native Americans rightfully owning the United States….

    • sure, extreme environmentalists here at WUWT right out of Greenpeace
      OK, OK, I love the Eucalypts – their scent alone is mesmerizing. I first met them hiking Will Rogers State Park outside? LA and have no issues with conserving the urban landscape (doing what I can here in VT though not particularly urban), but ask this – what if this was a post by Eric Worrall?
      Keep up the good conservation work.

      • Point taken, Bubba. But you’d be amazed just how far over the top this group is…
        Regarding your Worrall question: I don’t understand it. My comment is author-neutral.
        And thank you for your comments about Eucs. 🙂

    • It is pretty obvious that you are not schooled in ecology. You also rant like an activist.
      FACT: Gum trees are an invasive species, not because the are non native but because they drive out native species like redwoods! The number of species supported by an Eucalyptus grove is 15% of the number of species supported by an Oak grove.

      • DY,
        Exactly. Eucalyptus trees are dangerous and destructive. Worse than windmills.
        And oddly enough both are liked by the same kind of people.

      • Well Yote, I’m not schooled in Ecology, because it isn’t a science, and barely has a definition. And “activist” implies public speechifying, self-righteousness, historical ignorance, lack of humor, stridency and poor personal hygiene. No thanks.
        The rest of your post has been thoroughly debunked. I’m not looking it up for you.

  20. There is no science behind the idea that naked hugs helps trees, but it does help the politics by creating free publicity. In that respect, it’s very similar to the naked alarmism of global-warming.

  21. In some parts of the country, it would be considered foolhardy to be naked and hugging trees. Fire ants!
    In Berkley, my concern would be how sanitary those trees would be. How many other naked eviros have been hugging that very same spot?

  22. John M. Ware July 24, 2015 at 10:57 am
    It is possible to think about a naked bottom as symbolizing innocence or babyhood or helplessness. In this photo, the symbolism is quite different….
    This photo is quite disturbing, a bunch of fat old guys humping trees. I may have nightmares.

  23. Extremists tend to grow more extreme, not less, as problems get closer to solutions.

    David Weber – “The Honor of The Queen”

  24. That’s one way to put the F in eucalyptus. I heard (cough) that the resin oil in the bark of this tree causes severe shrinkage of the genitalia – after all the spots have dried up! .

  25. I have never met someone on the left that could analyze the unintended consequences of their half baked ideas. Emotion over reason. That’s how they roll.

  26. The environmentalists seem willing to do about anything, except take science courses and learn something about it.

  27. “…such as we recently saw in Canada when Ezra Levant was asked by a parent to interview their child holding a sign. The parent then went on an online rant about it.”
    It was much more than an online rant by the parent. The parent in question, Catherine Porter, is a Toronto Star reporter doing both a protest and a newspaper article about the protest. (For readers unfamiliar, the Toronto Star is a major Canadian newspaper with a far-left editorial stance. Think New York Times or The Guardian of the Great White North. AKA The Toronto Red Star.) Ms Porter’s published description of her and her child’s encounter with Ezra Levant bore little resemblance to the live video recording of the event. Ms Porter apparently did not even identify herself as a newspaper reporter.

    • I realize that from where you sit it’s hard to tell the difference between slightly left and far left. I mean, if you’re sitting on Pluto, Calgary and Edmonton look pretty close to each other. From Red Deer you can easily tell the difference.
      Bottom line: you’re telling us more about yourself than about the Toronto Star.

    • Here I will attempt to make a few serious comments about Eucalyptus trees. First, who knew Eucalyptus had such low-hanging fruits?
      Truly, in all seriousness now, from Wikipedia:
      Eucalyptus plantations in California have been criticised because they compete with native plants and do not support native animals
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus
      I have what I think are Red gum Eucalyptus, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, growing nearby. These trees are mildly infested with the red gum lerp psylid, (RGLP), Glycaspis brimblecombei, which was reportedly first noted in Los Angeles in 1998.
      I say mildly infested because the local birds are eating the lerps as quickly as they appear.
      http://waynesword.palomar.edu/rgumlerp.htm
      The link describes a tiny parasitoid wasp Psyllaephagus bliteus, also native to Australia, that has been introduced in California since 2000 to control the red gum lerp.
      http://nature.berkeley.edu/biocon/dahlsten/rglp/RLP-para.htm
      Lerp, btw, is an aboriginal word, sez Wiki.
      Because one of the red gums grows in close proximity to one of my windows, I’ve had the unique opportunity to observe closely the natural activity in the trees, in particular native bird species which have taken to feasting on the red gum lerps, including Western Tanager, Audubon’s Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Black-headed Grosbeak, Hooded Oriole, Wilson’s Warbler, and probably others, in addition to the non-native, introduced House sparrow. I suspect also that at least two species of hummingbirds – Annas and Costas – may be feeding on the tiny pslids, if not the lerps themselves, so the notion that eucalypts do not support native California animals is entirely erroneous.
      My photo show a Western Tanager with a red gum lerp in its beak. It is noteworthy that most birds eating the lerps seem to do so daintily, savoring the wee beastie before swallowing it. By contrast, House sparrows just gulp.
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/splinx/7315053434/sizes/c/
      Photo: Steve P
      I could mention too the Red-shouldered hawk, which in California is commonly found in, around, and on coastal eucalyptus groves. A peek at its range map may be instructive.
      I question the wisdom of introducing a parasitic wasp to control the RGLP when it seems there are numerous natural predators which have recognized, and now utilize this new food source.

  28. Now, now, you have to admit these folks have some skin in the game.
    But I wonder how many of them ended up with a bit of a rash or itch from their intimate interactions? Nature isn’t always as friendly with you as you might want to be with them. ;->

  29. Talking of sanity
    Why would the National Science Foundation be interested in this
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-AMO.htm
    On their website it states:
    The NSF’s mission is to advance the progress of science, a mission accomplished by funding proposals for research and education made by scientists, engineers….
    Dear NFS
    No thanks, my research is financed by my weekly pocket money allowance !
    insanity all around

  30. I heard somewhere that around 3 million trees were cut down in Scotland to make way for wind turbines.

    • Sociopaths. Sadly it recalls to memory the disturbing similarities between Gore’s writing and Unabomber’s manifesto.

  31. I’m shocked at the lack of tolerance this site’s denizens are showing toward hortisexuals. You’d think it was the dark days before Obergefell v. Hodges.

  32. Why is it when it comes to stripping naked, the ones you want to peel don’t, and the ones you would rather not see in the altogether are the first in line.
    Regardless, one of the participants appears to be a juvenile, wouldn’t that be contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

    • Greenpeace India has played a major role in opposing genetically modified food in the country.

      It’s complicated (but not nearly as complicated as the climate wars). http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide There are lots of big lies on all sides of the debate.
      I’m not sure if I support Greenpeace or not on this particular issue. We know that GM seeds will spread to other fields. If Monsanto finds any of their patented crop in your field, they will sue you for a bunch (no matter how it got there)(and the lawyer fees will break you anyway). There is the danger that farmers will give up trying to save their own seeds and have to buy Monsanto’s product. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser Adam Smith never imagined that kind of crap when he described capitalism.
      On the other hand, how can it be bad to produce more food for people who need it?

      • bob: you might find it interesting to research how many times Monsanto has sued farmers for patent violations (think small). The one example always raised involved a nutty guy who did everything but dance on Monsanto’s genitals in an attempt to draw a suit.
        They also never implemented terminator gene technology. Also, hybrids which don’t produce fertile seed were around before GM. And many farmers buy new seed each season regardless of Monsanto.
        I don’t care either way about large corporations, but I almost feel sorry for Monsanto when I think about how wrong the common perception is, based only on propaganda…

      • takebackthegreen says:
        July 25, 2015 at 8:32 am
        … a nutty guy who did everything but dance on Monsanto’s genitals in an attempt to draw a suit.

        We need the ‘special’ people to do things that other people won’t. For instance, during WW2, the French resistance was made up mostly of folks who didn’t fit well in society. IMHO we owe our liberty to folks the sheeple would call nutty. (I use WW2 as an example because it’s living memory. 1776 is a bit far back to make judgment about most of the people involved.)
        The only reason he didn’t dance on Monsanto’s genitals was because he couldn’t find them. 🙂 I see both sides of the issue and sit firmly on the fence.

  33. They look like magnificent trees been there for a long time making shade for people to enjoy. Haven’t burnt the university to the ground. Unless felling them is part of a bona fide eradication program I don’t see much point in chopping them down. People with no clothes on is not a problem unless they disrobed under duress. People need to be able to make a distinction between natural skin that everyone has and what sex is. Hugging a tree isn’t a sexual act and that aspect of the story is just wowserism. Eucalyptus leaves oil content does make for very hot and short duration burn (explosive in a crown fire) but university looks well watered and extremely improbable event in that locale to get a crown fire. Still if eradication is a serious goal let no eucalyptus stand!

    • “Hugging a tree isn’t a sexual act.” Thanks, James.
      So you get to decide what is and is not a sexual act?
      Do I need your approval before I jump the knot with my knotty pine, for whom I am pining?

    • The University looks “well watered”? Isn’t this the University of California at Berkeley? Isn’t California in the middle of a drought with severe water restrictions?

  34. Sanity?
    These are enviro-Mentalists.
    Emoticons in other words.
    ‘We are so good because we care.Ignore our acts,worship our concern.”
    I cannot doubt their sanity as they have offered no evidence of being sane.

  35. Eucalypts certainly burn, if there is enough under story fuel load the canopy pretty much explodes. The picture was taken from our verandah in early 2009, a bad fire season. But to the worrying Gaia crowd in the Golden State, relax guys they ain’t in no danger, trust me they’re safe with us here in Ozz.
    The trees in the WUWT picture look like eucalypts from high rainfall zones such as Messmate or Black Butt not the Box forests we have in our locality. But be assured they all burn very well in bushfires. Box is also an excellent fuel for home fires as is Red Gum and many other types of eucalypts.

    • Interesting picture. Did someone say Eucs don’t burn? That would be a dumb thing to say.

  36. In C19th Germany, the ‘Friends of Nature’ adopted the slogan ‘Free Mountains, Free World, Free People’. This sort of idea was also promoted by the ‘Wandervogel’, the ‘wandering birds’ movement after its foundation in 1895. They sought ‘communion with nature’. As a result, amongst regular activities, the wandering birds also liked to go swimming with no clothes on. Boys and girls together. Cor!
    Only a little more. The ‘wandervogeln’ invented something called the ‘leader principle’ (fuhrerprinzip) and ‘volkskultur’ (folk culture). These ideas became very handy later on, when ex-members of the wandervogel took charge in Germany. Their rule included killing Ukranian farmers en masse to punish them for their industrial farming methods (sadly, there were to be less Ukranians to kill than predicted. Stalin gor there first). They had a key slogan, too: ‘sustainability’. So, fewer Ukranians meant more (human) organic fertiliser. All that naturally-produced calcium!
    But the best news is that what was once denigrated as alarming and revolutionary about these naturists is now ‘mainstream’.
    Keep it up lads and lassies! (in both senses.)

  37. It’s funny how environmentalism can lead to the destruction of trees, the UK Drax power station being a perfect example….
    Complete and unadulterated lunacy.
    Chris

    • +1
      Isn’t it INSANE?
      People are so endlessly, creatively, passionately stupid…
      🙂

  38. In reading an essay by Gary North I ran across this bit of history that I had forgotten. Interesting.
    “… This was openly admitted in 1990 by Robert Heilbroner, the multi-millionaire socialist economics professor, author of the best-selling history of economic thought, The Worldly Philosophers. He wrote an obituary: “After Communism.” It was published in The New Yorker (Sept 10, 1990). In it, he wrote these words: “Mises was right.” Right about what? About the impossibility of rational economic calculation in a world without private property and capital markets. He then called for the next phase of socialism, one which will be based on environmentalism, not economic theory. He said that only by mobilizing the masses behind the idea that the government should intervene in order to save the environment, could socialism once again gain a hearing. Otherwise, the movement was dead.”
    Note: Essay not really about the green blob. It is about the left itself.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/gary-north/why-the-left-always-gets-capitalism-wrong/

  39. To protect a feral, dangerous, environment-destroying tree is a great example of modern climate/environmentalist extremist thinking.

    • moderator, please excuse my previous post- I didn’t see that the farcical name I used yesterday meant that oaf’s name had become default on this computer.

  40. In Oz we grow northern hemisphere, deciduous trees in and around our towns because the eucalypts and acacias are such a fire hazard being fire adapted. They NEED fire to open their seed pods. The eucalyptus oil vaporises and the forest explodes. We don’t have winter snow to set the annual pattern of life so they hitch a ride on the likelihood of summer fire. Clever plants.
    The other thing about them is that the upper branches will break and fall without warning. Our pioneering people referred to them as widow makers because so many workers in the bush were killed in their sleep by falling branches, typically speared by the heavy end of a 6″ branch falling 100 ft to ground.
    Don’t get me wrong, Aussies love eucalypts as a defining element of our landscape but we are realists to our core. Why the Californians are so obsessed with them is beyond me.

  41. PETA and now these guys. Someone should start a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of People. The group should call out and shame activists who exploit naked young people to publicize their pet cause.

  42. Pass these photos on to
    Zombie of Zombie Time blog
    A blog that has the long goofy record of Calif. loons doing loon stuff naked.
    Caution unless you are careful you will see mine than you wish.

  43. “Some days you just have to wonder about the sanity of environmentalists”
    Some days?

  44. These folks remind me of PETA. The things they do are so loony, how could they possibly expect to persuade someone to their cause?

  45. Strange looking koala bares you have there. Do you think the big one will get the hang of climbing and show the others how it’s done?

  46. Funny denglish. For a dane with less ability in english, tree hugging would be translated to cutting down trees. To “hugge” means to cut with an axe or to steal from others.
    Yes, we have a lot of words spelled the same but with very different meaning.

Comments are closed.