Tree has roots in true, etymologically [a kind of response]

I was never a big fan of trees. And yet growing up in a city without many of those, one was bound and still is, to get caught looking for one. Especially when in those irreversible states of needing to take a pee, it is true, trees indeed provide the best shade and semi-shelter for those occasions. Yet, what I always found problematic and preposterous - in need for more clarity [by means of what, one might inquire] which by lacking it left me with reservations - is the frantic fetishization of nature; the arbitrary and sporadically ecstatic supra-naturalization of nature. [that is, very much the case with history and archaeological discoveries as well - and Cyprus is susceptible to a plethora of those - where often the fetishization of history, of the past, overestimates the value of the old. Still, we (as humanity) have found no way of either un-covering, re-covering, dis-covering, unbound from this regressive yearning. How do we confront the melancholy of realizing that history is contingent?]. Justice and injustice are not determined by laws. It's the laws that stabilize what is just and what is unjust (anthropocentrically). Like any legal system, nature has its (own? - is there such thing as immanence after all?) laws as well. And they are not called "Laws of nature" (that supposedly castigate us when transgressing them; do they apply to penguins as well? can they be held guilty?). It is us that call them "Laws of nature" and by establishing such laws we predetermine an infliction on trespassers (humanity?) when they (humanity?) do not fulfill those laws constituted in the place (one might even say, in the absence) of nature. Global warming, as the ultimate crime, is punished by the death sentence. And everyone (who?) is held guilty. And such a crime has undoubtly been hovering over the sky as the electric chair and castor oil in a pack and parcel, as the present threat, promising the worst unless repentance and law-abiding are soon to be embraced by the infidels. The end of the world is coming! Or the world is coming to an end.
But, take a pause here.
Where would you have gone anyway? Where are you planning to go, and the end of the world will prevent you from doing so? You have a dentist appointment on Monday, right? Surely you can cancel it. The world is ending after all, you don't want to miss out the end. And where was the world heading to anyway? We all know we need trees. Don't we? Do we, actually? And how do we know that? It is scientifically proven. Oh, right, so we don't need trees for nature's sake, but for science's. Is that what you are telling me? And how did we come to legitimize science? Is it by nature, by the (scientific) laws of nature, that we approve science of making valid statements about nature according to its (science's) laws? Is science naturalized? By the means of what? Yes, but can't you see, summers are turning to winters and winters are turning to springs! And what does that have to do with anything? Teachers will still work eight months a year and get four months holidays. Australians never complained about welcoming Santa Clause in swimming suits year in and year out, why should you? And what about the ice melting? Was it not you that signed a petition a couple of months ago for new measurements in order to provide Africa with clean water? There you have it! And what about the extinction of animals? Natural History Museums have to survive somehow, don't you think? We once had dinosaurs, I thought you were glad we got them out of our way. Oh come on, we are going in circles now. So if we still are (going in circles), why are you worried?
The obscure rationale about the significance of nature, reminds me of that paradoxical story about democracy: How did we come to perceive democracy as the most credible, the one of highest value political system? You know, it is because the majority of people want it. But that is already a democratic precedent and having taken that into account neither negating nor affirming democracy is, to say the least, accessible. OK, listen what we'll do: we vote, whoever is for democracy and who is against it. You don't get it do you?
So, still, even if nature is not important by / to / according to the laws of man and/or science of nature, but is, by / to / according to the laws of nature of nature, that is nature is by nature alone (immanently) significant, what does that tell us anyway? How can you evaluate nature's value by nature's values? What on oblique (an oh, yes, we can get vicious here, circullary vicious and ask "Oblique? By the means of what? Is there a norm?"), what an oblique remark to make: "Nature is important; naturally"
Where does, then, the essence of nature abide, and by the means of what is it essential? In other words, what's the big fuzz?