Eco-terrorism

The Television & Movie Wiki: for TV, celebrities, and movies.

Terrorism
General
Definitions
Conventions
Counterterrorism
Lists
Organizations
Individuals
Incidents
Types
Nationalist
Religious
Left-wing
Right-wing
State
State sponsored
Racist
Narcoterrorism
Domestic
Anarchist
Political
Eco-terrorism
Tactics
Hijacking
Assassination
Car bombing
Suicide bombing
Kidnapping
Bioterrorism
Nuclear terrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf

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.

1 Definitions
2 Groups
3 Rush Limbaugh
4 Ecoterrorism in Fiction
5 See also
6 External links

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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].

[edit]

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.

[edit]