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:
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. )
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. 🙂
How does GRASS start fires?
Are you kidding?
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.
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.
You are so wrong. The Carbon Dioxide expelled by the tree huggers help the trees.
Someone should introduce koalas to control the trees. What could possibly go wrong? 🙂
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?
eeeewh +100
Has anyone considered how the trees feel about being molested like that?
Bring along your Saranwrap next time you intend to hug trees.
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.
check if your insurance covers that ;>)
David Weber – “The Honor of The Queen”
Butt, when you get naked it means you’re serious.
You can’t be serious …
After clicking the link, there is only one possible response, by John Wayne.
“Lady, put your clothes back on, you’re scaring the horses.”
As far as radicals exploiting children goes, Kate at SDA has another example. Seems radicals using children to further an agenda is a common theme.
“Baby Boomers”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/07/baby-boomers-23.html#comments
how did thy find a willing crew with no visible tattoos?
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! .
Lauan is also toxic by dermal contact.
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.
LOOK! The Enviros have no clothes! Somebody tell the Emperor!
ha + 20
The environmentalists seem willing to do about anything, except take science courses and learn something about it.
“…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.
It happens
Gives new meaning to their bark being worse than their bite 😀
She’s sneaking up on the two naked old guys!
She knows better than to get naked around that lot!
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.
Wrong place. I truly wish the reply button would be banished to babylon.
Thank you Steve.
They also shelter millions of migrating Monarchs.
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. ;->
They should import koalas to eat the eucalyptus. Now they look huggable.
Hugging Eucalyptus trees? Did no-one warn them about the risk of Drop bears?
Drop bears and hoop snakes, now there is a good idea for a grant…
Do I see some dark aerosols in that picture Anthony ?
they might melt some snow
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
Just another enviro splinter group…
Ha +19 (I like the emperor thing a smidge better)
Max Photon — ouch! — Eugene WR Gallun
I heard somewhere that around 3 million trees were cut down in Scotland to make way for wind turbines.
Yeah but they were shipped to DRAX so it’s renewables all the way down …
I am sorry to say it, but I doubt many men will get wood over the photo.