From Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia.
The term eco-terrorism
is a
neologism which has been used
to describe threats and acts of
violence (both against people
and against property),
sabotage,
vandalism,
property damage and
intimidation committed in the name
of
environmentalism. As a
pejorative term,
"eco-terrorism" has also been used
to describe legally-protected
forms of
nonviolent
protest by
environmentalists, which is
generally seen as an attempt to
associate this activity with other
more contentious acts that can
legitimately be labeled as
eco-terrorism.
The term is believed to have
been coined by
Ron Arnold, an executive at
the
Center for the Defense of Free
Enterprise and author of
Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to
Save Nature.
Definitions
While there is no consensus on
the exact definition of "terrorism",
the word is typically used to
describe politically motivated
acts of violence, threatened use
of violence or the destruction of
property with the intention to
intimidate governments or
civilians. Acts meeting these
criteria and committed in the
name of environmental causes
would accurately be described as
"eco-terrorism". This should be
distinguished from "environmental
terrorism", which is more properly
described as attacks on (or using)
the environment or resources for
political purposes.[1]
(PDF)
The
FBI's Domestic Terrorism
Section defines eco-terrorism 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."
Other acts, which are
nonviolent in nature, cannot
be properly referred to as
"eco-terrorism" even though they
might be annoying or disruptive to
others. However, some definitions
are raising controversy and civil
rights issues by using an
all-encompassing definition that
could be interpreted to include
virtually all environmental
protests, even those that would
otherwise be legal.
For example, a bill proposed by
the
American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) called the
Animal and Ecological Terrorism
Act
[2] begins with the
description, "An act relating to
criminal offenses involving acts
against certain activities
involving animals or involving
natural resources and to civil
consequences arising from
convictions of those offenses."
The bill defines an "animal rights
or ecological terrorist
organization" as "two or more
persons organized for the purpose
of supporting any politically
motivated activity intended to
obstruct or deter any person from
participating in an activity
involving animals or an activity
involving natural resources."
Some critics of the term
"eco-terrorism" have argued that
it should mean the opposite of its
current accepted meaning. They
claim that persons, companies and
governments engaging in
ecologically irresponsible
activies such as pollution are
committing "terrorism" against the
environment. Some critics further
claim that the militant
environmental groups are actually
"eco-defenders".
This "counter-definition" is also
sometimes used rhetorically to
express the environmentalist point
of view, or to justify their
actions.
Canadian environmentalist
David Suzuki, for instance,
has described the Prime Minister
of
Australia,
John Howard, as an
eco-terrorist for failing to abide
by the
Kyoto Protocol on
climate change.[3].
On
September 12,
2005 the
New York Times reported
that at a conference on terrorism
at the
University of Georgia in 1997,
William S. Cohen, then the
secretary of defense, spoke of
rogue researchers developing "an
eco-type of terrorism, whereby
they can alter the climate, set
off earthquakes, volcanoes
remotely, through the use of
electromagnetic waves."
[4] Using the concept above,
however, this last form of
terrorism is "environmental
terrorism," not "eco-terrorism"
since it represents the use of
resources or the environment for
political purposes.
Groups
The three organizations most
commonly labeled as
“eco-terrorists” within the United
States are the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF),
the
Earth Liberation Front (ELF),
and
Earth First!. Their websites
all openly advocate tactics
including
arson,
graffiti,
vandalism and property
destruction. Through their actions
millions of dollars of homes,
equipment, and research (including
medical research) have been
willfully destroyed by ALF and ELF
operations, although they publicly
disavow harm to humans or animals.
Despite this, they are labelled
"fundamentalist" by some, however
ALF, ELF, and Earth First!
generally target only large
corporations. This led the FBI in
2001 to name ELF as "one of
the most active extremist elements
United States", and a "terrorist
threat".[5]
People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA)
has been financially linked to
eco-terrorist groups[6]
and has provided financial support
to eco-terrorist organizations
such as ALF and ELF. This
connection has been largely in the
form of financial help for both
convicted activists and "daily
activities", and also PETA using
footage from ALF raids for their
own legal purposes. In addition,
several high ranking members of
PETA have made statements
advocating the use of property
destruction.
[7]
[8].
Rush Limbaugh
Environmentalist wacko,
Econazi and Ecoterrorist
are labels that
conservative
talk show host
Rush Limbaugh uses to describe
what he considers to be extremely
radical environmentalists. He
has applied all three of these
terms to such groups as the
Sierra Club and
Greenpeace.
According to Limbaugh, some
"environmentalist wackos" and "econazis"
reject all forms of higher
technology (electrical,
mechanical, medicine, etc) and
want the
United States to abolish the
automobile, stop using oil and
gas, and revert to an agrarian
society. Members of
Earth First or the
Earth Liberation Front would
in his view exemplify
"environmentalist wackos", since
they are known for carrying out
criminal attacks on organizations
they deem destructive to the
environment, such as setting fire
to buildings or breaking into labs
to release animals used for
scientific research. These people
would also sometimes be called -
many would object to such usage
because it seems to equate acts of
minor vandalism with major
terrorist acts. However, the
Domestic Terrorism Section Chief
of the Counterterrorism Division
of the FBI testified before the
House Resources Committee in
February of 2002 that
"eco-terrorism" carried out by the
ALF/ELF had resulted in "damages
in excess of 43 million dollars,"
hardly "minor vandalism."
He extends the use of the term
to describe a much broader segment
of the environmentalist movement;
thus, other environmentalist
policies and principles he
attributes to "environmentalist
wackos" include: ignoring economic
consequences of environmental
laws; ignoring or avoiding any
cost/benefit analysis regarding
environmental policies; placing an
equal or higher value on animal
life than on human life;
suggestions that animals are "just
as intelligent" as humans; relying
on lawsuits and laws to solve
environmental problems, rather
than relying on the marketplace.
Thus, quite a few
environmentalists would probably
qualify as "wackos" in his view.
He also often accuses
"environmentalist wackos" of using
environmentalism as an excuse for
the government to gain more
property and more control over the
lives of citizens.
Limbaugh uses the terms in the
context of presenting news stories
with commentary which are contrary
to the alleged theories and
beliefs that "environmentalist
wackos" presumably hold. Similar
views about the environmentalist
movement may be held by people
with conservative political views,
however
extremist environmentalist
organizations like
Earth First! and the
Earth Liberation Front are
sometimes repudiated by people
across the political spectrum.
Ecoterrorism in Fiction
