Eco Terrorism- An introduction

For those that are unfamiliar with the concept of eco terrorism, it is defined on meriam-webster.com as “sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment”. It is a movement that has been around for only a few decades, but has already gained attention from the media and the government. Different individuals and environmental groups have been found responsible for committing an array of tactics from setting fire to an SUV dealership to hammering nails into trees so that if a saw were to hit them it would be damaged. These actions are obviously very destructive and will result in great economic loss for the companies involved. However, the people behind these acts are fully aware of this fact and use it to their advantage. The Earth Liberation Front or ELF is at the forefront of the movement and is responsible for many acts of eco terrorism. A spokesperson for ELF says “Property destruction targets the motive behind environmental destruction: profit….” If they can prevent companies that they see as harmful to the environment from making a profit, they see this as a victory.


The United States government takes the actions of ELF and the ALF, the Animal Liberation Front, very seriously. According to the article, Perspectives on Ecoterrorism: Catalysts, Conflations, and Casualties by Randall Amster, “…in 2002 while testifying before Congress, James F. Jarboe,Chief of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, referred to the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts (ALF/ELF) as ‘a serious terrorist threat’ that would be considered on a par in terms of investigative priorities with ‘the recent focus on international terrorism’”.
With this kind of attention, you would think that their actions have resulted in mass casualties when in fact they have never hurt a single person. The spokesperson for ELF even said, “I don’t consider damaging property to be violence. The end goal of the ELF is to save life on this planet, to stop violence.” So can this really be considered a terrorist threat? In defining terrorism the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism says that it is designed to hurt civilians. Has the US changed the definition in order to include these specific groups? Why not just call it something like extreme intentional property damage? It seems that the government over the last decade has taken some liberty in labeling groups that they are odds with as terrorists. This rush to judgment is causing others to be thrown into the category of eco terrorists even when it is undeserved. I think if they are allowed this freedom, soon all environmental groups will be thought of negatively and the overall environmental movement will suffer.

Source:Perspectives on Ecoterrorism: Catalysts, Conflations, and Casualties by Randall Amster
Image:http://www.indypendent.org