Is the reason why "environmentalists" are perceived in the US due to the English language?

Question

As this word is used in a undistinct manner for:

- environmental militant/activists

(which only implies an opinion, often in connection to an NGO and/or or a political party)

AND

- environmental scientists

(which implies a lot of study in "objective"sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, process technologies.... together with non scientific fields such as economy).

Other languages have clearly differenciated words for both.

Answer 1

This question shouldn't be in the Environment section, should probably be in the word play or homework help area.

It's interesting though that Militant/Activists imply an opinion?  To me it implies violence and hatred.

Envrionmental Scientists is too general of a term, home environment, urban environment, etc...

How do other languages differentiate the term 'environmentalist'?  

I think we have to admit that the E.L.F hasn't brought about any really good publicity...  In someways GreenPeace has, in some ways it hasn't.  

There is a perception that all envrionmentalists are tree hugging, granola eating, not had a bath in a month, dreadlocked, smelly, hippie from California...

Of course, there is also the perception that if your anti-Global warming then you're a country hick with a 3rd grade education with 6-7 kids, poor, and you love Jesus.

Perception has nothing to do with reality though.

Answer 2

You are comparing two uses of an adjective. Would you have had a problem with the use of "yellow" as an adjective because "yellow fever" is not "yellow journalism"? Unfortunately, you are not alone.

An environmentalist is not anything like an environmental scientist. I have confused people by telling them that I am an ecologist. Heaven forfend that I describe myself as an environmental biologist. That would really throw them for a loop.

Answer 3

My own perception of U.S. opinion is that it has long been tangibly affected by justifiable concerns of business-owners...in particular, owners of small to medium-sized businesses.

As early as the seventies, small factories with decades of successful operation in the U.S. were being shut down by the EPA while, at the SAME TIME, competitors would open factories with no environmental protection or concern at all, literally a few meters from the U.S./Mexican border.

In the E.U., if I've read correctly, the government evens the playing field in such situations. Here, nobody gives one red rat's sass if we go outta biz or not. Although it has improved in some isolated areas, it was actually lopsided (favoring U.S. business failure) as recently as the mid-nineties.

Tying that into your question: nothing affects political opinion like a vacuum hose inserted into our pocket-book...ESPECIALLY by the SAME government we pay our taxes to.

Add to all that that pathetically self-aggrandizing, over-weight, under-loved AL GORE and his LIMO-filled "Inconvenient Truth" debacle - acting as if he'd discovered climate instability, just as he pretended to have invented the internet - with its complete avoidance of "bipartisan" inclusion, and you have a recipe for absolute hostility concerning an issue that should be dealt with sans ANY emotion.

...

Answer 4

No, it's a distinctly American parochialism.  Rachel Carson was vilified by the vested interests.  It's clear to me now that she (environmentalism) was, and still is, seen a threat.  

Due to historical circumstances in the US, environmentalism became associated with counter-culturalism.  

Of course, it's a natural fit between the two - but the association was amplified and the issue was framed in such a way as to polarize it completely - so you would have straight red-blooded patriotic god-fearing free market true Americans on one side and dope smoking, pinko, commie, hippy weirdo American hating athiests on the other.

And the diatribe continues from the right to this very day.

It's going to cause them great consternation when they finally have to admit that "energy conservation" and "alternative energy" and "carbon taxes" and "locally produced foods" and "super high milage cars"  and other stuff the progressives have been ranting about all these years turn out to be the best (and oops, our only) option.

Answer 5

Global warming is not an objective science.  This is why believers need a consensus to interpret the data.

No one argues with objective science, as objective science just is.

There are other sciences that can never be proven as right, like the big bang theory, however gvmt isn't demanding that we change our lives, or pay more taxes to support these theories.

By mixing subjective science where people's interpretation of data, and their faith in these interpretations is mixed with politics, we have something like religion running gvmts.

People should be free to choose their side, however no one should be forced to accept someone else's faith.  If global warming can be objectively shown to be true, then this is a different case.

However it needs to be understood that just because you don't accept the dogma of the cult of the believers, doesn't mean that a person is not concerned about the health of the planet.  Free markets work and people are now demanding that the products they use and buy be green.

[Edit] Sorry for the confusion.  I should realize that English isn't your first language.

Answer 6

Environmental in both of your example's is used as an adjective it is describing the type of militant or the type of scientist.

An environmentalists , which you did not give an example for is described as a person who is an activist about the environment.

There are several words in the English language that have a different meaning depending on the context they are used in.

.

Answer 7

"Environmentalists" are preceived the way they are because of their actions.