INTRODUCTION
“The stated position of extremist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is that human beings are never targeted or harmed.” (Liddick 2006).
Ecoterrorism is defined by the FBI as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” (Horton 2008). We define ecoterrorism as using terror tactics to oppose ecologically unfriendly practices. The positions of extremist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is “that human beings are never targeted or harmed,” however there is no guarantee that there will not be unwanted casualties when promoting such violent acts (Liddick 2006).
Ecoterrorism is related to environmentalism regarding its attempt to preserve the pure state of nature. Pure nature is commonly referred to as the nonhuman realm typified by its own order and harmony (Proctor 2017). In our own words, we believe that pure nature is nature untouched by human hands. Studying ecoterrorism shows that not all actions made in the name of conservation are inherently morally sound or righteous. Ecoterrorists have irreversibly changed the meaning of environmental conscientiousness.
CONTEXT
Although opposition to environmentally detrimental activities has existed sporadically for generations, the opposition movement gained significant traction during the 1960’s and 70’s. Edward Abbey’s Monkey Wrench Gang was published in 1975 and chronicles the adventures of environmental extremists in their war against the industrial development of the American Southwest. The book, although fiction, inspired many like-minded individuals to act accordingly.
According to the FBI, the term eco-terrorism was first adopted in 1977 by the group “Earth Liberation Front” (Horton 2008). This highly radical group, founded by John Hanna, preaches “acting alone” and “non-violent civil disobedience” (ELF 2017). The organization has a policy of non-violence against people or the environment, but does believe in the power of terror to influence policy and decision making.
“The Earth Liberation Front is not interested in more conventional means to political change. They come out of the wing of the environmental movement that can be said to have begun with the Edward Abbey novel ‘The Monkey Wrench Gang’ and found its embodiment in the group Earth First!” (Sullivan, 1998).
Because of the public nature of terrorist incidents, many ecoterrorism movements have been highly publicized over the last thirty years. From Tre Arrow’s eleven day ledge sitting incident in Portland, to the fires of Vail, Colorado, Americans have grown used to defensive environmentalists targeting companies and individuals that infringe upon their perception of nature. In fact, the FBI has reported that ecoterrorism is the biggest terrorism threat to the United States.
Ecoterrorism closely aligns with essentialism. Ecoterrorist groups, like the ELF, often pursue ‘preservation’ of what is inherently natural. The idea that there is some state of “pure” nature, the idea that “purity vis-à-vis humans” is the only rational state of nature is an essentialist point of view and is the main concept used to justify acts of eco terrorism (Proctor 2017).
“Over the last several decades, many scholars have modified, challenged, or rejected this pure view of nature, claiming that the reality of our biophysical world is entangled with human actions” (Proctor 2017).
CRITIQUE
Labeling a movement as ecoterrorist stems from the negativity surrounding certain eco-justice practices. Eco-justice itself does not suggest harmful and or malicious intent. The attempt to preserve a purity of nature is not necessarily violent. However, the way in which certain environmental groups choose to protect their perceptions of nature is what makes them potentially dangerous to society.
A critique of Ecoterrorism is in the scale of these illegal acts of destruction to private and public property. Between 1980 and 1999 there were 100 acts of destruction committed by ecoterrorist organizations in the US alone (Chad et al. 2002). The damages caused by ecoterrorist groups in the US have been valued to cost both private and public domains about $42.8 million (Chad et al. 2002). The destruction of private and public property not only breaks the US vandalism law, but endangers human lives (Chad et al. 2002). The emergence of individual eco-vigilantism that acts against the accordance of national laws and their own safety has been adopted by ELF supporters.
ELF’s website proclaims: “the ELF’s mission is to defend and protect the Earth for future generations by means of direct action.” (ELF 2017). Their mission objective is then followed by a warning to future members: “Anyone choosing this path must be prepared to face potential life-changing consequences.” ELF states that “non-violent direct action should only be considered as a last resort,” which implies that violence should be considered the default action when intervening on an environmental issue (ELF 2017). Thus, ecoterrorist groups and members have demonstrated a lack of value for human life.
A third critique of eco-terrorism can be identified in the apocalyptic portrayal of contemporary environmental issues by organizations such as ELF. Many ecoterrorist groups utilize apocalyptic images of natural destruction to promote their viewership to fight against the forces they claim are destroying the natural environment. In ELF’s website, for example, they use bloody depictions of whale carcases and put a particular emphasis on the spilling of blood within industrial compounds and in the ocean.
Mike Hulme discusses in length the failures associated with the overemphasis of apocalyptic images depicting the destruction of nature. In his book, ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change,’ Hulme asserts that ‘presaging the apocalypse’ is meant to evoke “a sense of danger, fear and urgency to discourses.” (Hulme 347). Instead, Hulme suggests that the presaging apocalypse results in “disempowerment, apathy and skepticism among its audience.” (Hulme 348). Therefore, ecoterrorism is unable to fulfill its aims from the very start because it fails to rally its audience to take action against ‘eco crimes.’
CONCLUSION
Ecoterrorism as a label should not be invoked by environmentalists, or anyone for that matter, for a variety of reasons concerning the hazards it creates for society. The destruction of property is both illegal and potentially hazardous for innocent bystanders. Furthermore, the creation of eco-vigilantism is both potentially harmful to the instigator working on behalf of the eco-terrorist organisation. We also believe that apocalyptic depictions of natural destruction are not a successful way to rally support for environmental causes. Instead, we recognise that they demotivate and invoke scepticism among the audience viewing these images.
Extremist movements, especially under the context of destruction and illegal activity, are easily misconstrued by outsiders. Someone on the East coast, who is entirely removed from the benefits of any “justice” which may come of the act, would quickly label firebombing of crop dusters (as an example) as an act of ecoterrorism. The problem with the label of ecoterrorism lies in the latter half of the word. ‘Terrorism’ as an institution has an inherently negative connotation, which can be detrimental to environmental movements which seek to gain followers. An organization’s political weight is heavily dependant on its following, and a label which deters participation in such an organization hinders their influence.
Authored by: Julia Somers, Arran Hashim, Holden Jones, and Amy Trivelpiece
References
Proctor, James. “Ecoterrorism.” Introduction to Environmental Studies Spring 2017, March 12, 2017. /glossary/ecoterrorism/.
Proctor, James. “Nature.” EcoTypes, December 3, 2016. https://ds.lclark.edu/ecotypes/ecotypes-axis/nature/.
Horton, Jennifer. “How Eco-Terrorism Works.” HowStuffWorks, April 21, 2008. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/eco-terror.htm.
Liddick, Don. Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006.
Nilson, Chad, and Tod Burke. “Ecoterrorism.” Enviromental Extremists and the Eco-Terrorist Movement, 2002. https://www.unl.edu/eskridge/ecoterrorism.html.
ELF. “ELF (The Original).” Accessed March 18, 2017. http://www.originalelf.com/.
Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
White, Chris. “Eco-Terrorists Suspected Of Causing $2 Million In Arson Damage At Dakota Pipeline Site.” The Daily Caller, October 18, 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/eco-terrorists-suspected-of-causing-2-million-in-arson-damage-at-dakota-pipeline-site/.
Sullivan, Randal. “Hunting Tre Arrow: The Flight of America’s Most Wanted Eco-Terrorist.” Rolling Stone, December 12. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/hunting-tre-arrow-the-flight-of-americas-most-wanted-eco-terrorist-20021212.
Sullivan, Robert. “The Face of Eco-Terrorism.” The New York Times, December 20, 1998. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/magazine/the-face-of-eco-terrorism.html.
“The Monkey Wrench Gang (Monkey Wrench Gang, #1).” Goodreads. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.goodreads.com/work/best_book/2803318-the-monkey-wrench-gang-monkey-wrench-gang-1.