‘Tree-huggers’: Have stereotypes of environmental activists impacted climate action?

When you hear the word ‘environmentalist’, what do you picture? Someone chaining themselves to a tree or holding up protest signs in a hemp shirt? It’s possible you picture a privileged, young, white teenager when you hear this term. These images – some exaggerated, others rooted in real movements – have shaped how society views environmental activism. Stereotypes of environmentalists as ‘tree-huggers’, radicals, or out-of-touch idealists have long permeated media, politics, and popular culture. They’re often dismissed as alarmists or privileged hippies with unrealistic demands. While satire can be harmless, this type of branding has had serious consequences for public engagement with climate issues. In a time when climate action is more urgent than ever, the stereotype of the ‘tree-hugger’ may be doing more harm than good. 

Activists are often targeted with negative stereotypes, hindering their influence. The term ‘tree-hugger’ used to mean something positive, but has now descended into a flippant, derogatory insult. The term originates from the Bishnoi people of India and their traditional practice of protecting trees. In 1730, Bishnoi villagers sacrificed their lives by clinging to trees to prevent them from being cut down to build a royal palace. This act of resistance inspired the later Chipko movement in the 1970s, which saw women in northern India hugging trees to prevent them from being cut down by loggers. The Chipko movement and its associated term, ‘tree-hugging’, gained widespread recognition, but the term has since been appropriated and used as an insult. While the original tree-huggers were Indigenous communities defending their way of life and their environment, the term is now often used to describe white, often American, environmentalists. 

Extinction Rebellion’s use of civil disobedience tactics certainly gets them noticed, but it does not necessarily make people like them or want to support the cause

Perceptions of young activists undoubtedly limit their capacity to enact change. In 2019, following an animated presentation from then-climate and net zero spokesperson Ed Miliband, in which he set out Labour’s energy policies, Keir Starmer allegedly said to the shadow cabinet: “I hate tree-huggers.” If the Prime Minister of one of the most influential countries refuses to positively acknowledge environmental activists, what chance do they have of making a true difference? 

Framing activists as unrelatable radicals undermines public trust in climate science and delays policy change. When Greta Thunberg took to the world stage, critics focused more on her demeanour and age than on her message. Rather than engaging with her data-backed warnings, they ridiculed her tone, her autism diagnosis, and her perceived lack of ‘real-world’ experience. Similarly, the actions of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil activists have also been used as backing for the ridiculous, environmental extremist label, with 2019 shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves referring to them as “rude” environmental protesters who cause “needless disruption to people’s lives”. 

The press surrounding Just Stop Oil is anything but positive, and public trust is subsequently undermined. Extinction Rebellion’s use of civil disobedience tactics certainly gets them noticed, but it does not necessarily make people like them or want to support the cause. In 2019, activists glued themselves to trains on the Docklands Light Railway and to the entrance of the London Stock Exchange, as well as chaining themselves to railings outside Jeremy Corbyn’s house. Their actions set a record for the number of times “climate change” was mentioned in the UK press in a single month, while UK Google searches for the term reached levels not seen in a decade. The group’s actions were reported to have cost the Metropolitan Police £7.5 million, with the government stating that Extinction Rebellion disrupted the lives of “many hundreds of thousands of hard-working Londoners”. 

Instead of being seen as rational advocates for a liveable future, environmentalists have become easy targets for mockery. Hollywood, political pundits, and even corporate marketing have painted activists as irrational, overly emotional, or hypocritically reliant on the very systems they opposed. In reality, today’s environmental movement is broader, more inclusive, and more grounded than ever.  

If we want climate action to become mainstream, then the movement must look and feel mainstream too

The caricature of the protester doesn’t reflect the thousands of young professionals lobbying for green infrastructure, or the communities of colour fighting for environmental justice in polluted neighbourhoods. In 2019, US Senator Ed Markey and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were co-sponsors of the Green New Deal, a proposed federally mandated plan to achieve carbon-neutral emissions and 100% clean energy in 10 years. Additionally, a survey found that non-white groups reported a higher level of concern for the environment and climate change than white people. Similarly, low-income groups (earning less than $15,000 per year) reported higher levels of concern than high-income groups (earning more than $150,000 per year). Everyone is affected by the climate crisis, and everyone must fight to limit its impact. 

If we want climate action to become mainstream, then the movement must look and feel mainstream too. That means broadening the narrative so that people can see themselves in the movement, not outside of it. The climate crisis demands urgency, creativity, and collaboration. Calling someone a ‘tree-hugger’ shouldn’t be an insult. We must recognise that environmentalism isn’t a niche passion but a global necessity. Framing it as the domain of a select few misrepresents the sheer diversity and urgency of the cause. Fighting for a liveable planet shouldn’t require a costume or a caricature. We need every voice, every skill set, and every background at the table.