Thinking about the wider context can be equated as any other important consideration. For us it might be important to consider the impacts of cutting down a tree, for the ‘tree lopper’ it might not be.

For instance, I am supremely uninterested by my cars engine, although i rely on it every day to get to work, and there would be large impacts on my life if it were to fail, I still don’t maintain it very well. I will always push it that 5% extra because in all likelihood, nothing bad will happen, another road, another drive. And, the opportuntiy cost is I’d rather spend my scarce time on other more important subjects, like trawling Lemmy. It is only when the fan belt breaks and slaps me in the face that i start paying attention.

In a way the ‘vocal detractors’ are the fan belt snapping for the timber industry, until then they haven’t worried about the costs of their logging practices. And like i would be with an unexpected cost with my car, they will be angry at the ‘fan belt’. Its not the contextual issue that requires attention, but nonetheless vocal detractors are a convenient totem of anger. To them it isn’t a discussion about climate or biodiversity, its about their perceptions of social standing, and mild dissatisfaction is quickly perceived as an attack upon themselves.

The most perfect example of this, is to see how many people seem to be, as you say, illogically angry when they hear from Greta Thunberg. I don’t think it’s illogical, or irrational, they are reacting to a very different perception of what Greta Thunberg is saying, than, i suspect how we react.