It happens whenever a villain with a cause stirs up some mayhem: Observers on both the left and right seek to prove that the evil-doer derives inspiration from the other side's political ideology.

The cycle of blame has already begun with James Jay Lee, the man who held hostages at Discovery Communications headquarters in Silver Spring. A Google search (or a glance at the comments on TBD's main story) showcases plenty of commenters blaming Lee's behavior on the environmental movement.

What drove Lee's obsession with Discovery was a conviction that the network was pushing an anti-Green agenda. His list of accusations and demands includes exposing "civilization for the filth that it is," "encouraging human sterilization and infertility" and developing shows that will "correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy". Many of Lee’s positions — particularly those focusing on controlling the human population, a la Malthus — are outside the mainstream of the environmental movement.

But is it fair by any means to question the Green credentials of Discovery Communications? Is it normal for environmentalists to hate on this large Montgomery County employer?

While green groups haven't returned our calls about what they think of the Discovery Communications, the network has made or obtained multiple eco-friendly products over the past several years and has worked with the two environmentalists Lee credits with inspiring him.

Those being author Daniel Quinn and former Vice President Al Gore.

A strange set of inspirations, considering that Gore's work (and the success of An Inconvenient Truth) also inspired Discovery to launch Planet Green, an environmentally focused network, in 2008. A year earlier, Discovery bought the popular environmental blog TreeHugger for $10 million. And Discovery has other green initiatives as well.

Quinn, for his part, told TBD's Sarah Larimer he was "certainly surprised and distressed that he had somehow or other taken my book as a model for this kind of behavior."

UPDATE, 6:36 p.m. — Quinn later told us that criticism of the Discovery Channel isn't widespread among his fans.

"As far as I know, it's typical of him alone," he said.

Quinn said that he wasn't familiar enough with the channel to make any judgments.

All of the above doesn't mean that Discovery's green record doesn't have a sooty blemish or two. Its upcoming show starring former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin — who supports increasing off-shore drilling, opposes most environmental regulation and likes shooting wolves from helicopters — drew criticism from the environment bloggers at change.org and led to online petitions against the show. (Change.org had a post today condemning Lee's actions.) Another one of its shows, "Man vs. Wild," was criticized for showing people how to kill bats.

Lee's problems with Discovery, however, date back to at least 2008, well before the network started getting criticized for dealing with Palin.

And the building in which Lee took the hostages? It was the fist LEED Platinum-certified building in Maryland. (LEED is a ranking system for eco-friendly construction.)

Comparing Lee's stance on Discovery to the position of other environmentalists is difficult because many of his views weren't widely held. Most environmentalists don't advocate for population control. And many of the positions Lee stakes in his "manifesto" have nothing to do with the environment.

The facts of the green movement's relationship with the Discovery Channel make it clear it's unfair to generalize Lee's positions to the movement as a whole.