Environmental Terrorism

Dan Lavigne

March 31, 2018

Global Politics of Terrorism

Political Science

Environmental Terrorism

            Environmental terrorism or eco-terrorism is a response to the negative effects industry has caused to the environment by their actions. This includes dumping of waste into rivers, clear-cutting forest, and overfishing in the world’s oceans. Leading groups who partake in activities include traditional environmentalist as well as those who wish to protect animal welfare. To understand whether eco-terrorism is effective as a strategy it is best to provide a working definition. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation “.... 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” (Jarboe, 2002). This definition notes that eco-terrorism is environmentally focused and contains political elements and violence. These actions can be symbolic in nature. In this essay I will examine eco-terrorism as a strategy and argue why it not effective in terms of believes as well as for the environmental movement.

            The Earth Liberation Front, considered a domestic terrorist group in the United States since 2001, originated in the United Kingdom in the early 1990’s by Earth First!. By 1994 the group was found in mainland Europe. In the same year the Earth First! office in San Francisco advocated in the print of their journal a “.... recommendation that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF” (Jarboe, 2002). This created a more militant arm of the environmental movement while maintaining its peaceful presence in other parts of society, such as print.

            According to the film “If a Tree Falls” by Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman the first documented case of violence was the case of Warner Creek located in Oregon. In 1995 the Forest Service decided to open the area for logging. Activist began to take a more militant approach to the situation by partaking in actions of sabotage. This is commonly known as “monkeywrenching”. The FBI defines this as “...acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment.” (Jarboe, 2002). These acts are designed to slow down the destruction of the environment by industry, in addition to forestry services. The goal is to get these parties to rethink their priorities. These acts also force these actors to allocate necessary resources elsewhere. Examples include pulling up survey spikes, embedding rods into trees to ruin the chainsaws, gluing locks on the equipment, as well as pouring sugar into the gas tanks, thus ruining the engines. In addition to these actions activist at Warren Creek also built trenches and a wall to block the access road, which was later taken down by federal agents after arrest were made.

            Two more episodes of lighter violence led to the eventual acts of terrorism by E.L.F. under Jake Ferguson and Daniel McGowan. These events included the tree cutting in Eugene, Oregon as well as the Cavel/West Horse Farm arson. In the first episode, Symantec wanted to build a parking garage for their employees. This required the cutting of forty trees. The city was scheduled to hold public hearings, but moves were made to cut down the trees the day before. Activist climbed these trees in protest, risking pepper spray burns. Many were arrested leaving the city on edge. The second scenario included the Cavel/West Horse Farm. This was a company that processed, wild horses into meat. Many felt this to be cruel and protested their actions for over a decade. The building was burnt down by an environmental group in an act of arson leaving Jake Ferguson to believe they should scale up operations like these. Arson was a way not only to stop businesses from polluting, but to draw attention to the cause as news agencies flock stories like these.

            The E.L.F. then became more focused on using arson to stop environmental degradation. To carry out these actions the used “.... improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve[d] pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the internet” (Jarboe, 2002). Everything here points to premeditation with intention to destroy property. The group later claimed actions for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building Olympia Washington the Vail, Colorado, ski facility and the U.S. Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon (Jarboe, 2002). In addition to these cases the group was also responsible for the May 2001 University of Washington fire as well as the Jefferson Poplar tree farm fire. It later turned out that this facility used tradition hybrid methods of breeding trees that have been in practice for hundreds of years (Curry, Cullman, 2011). These acts show an uptick or escalation in militant environmentalism, a strategy which not gain overall support. 

            Despite actions to draw attention to the environmental cause, these actions did very little for the movement. The E.L.F. was marked as a terrorist organization by the FBI in March of 2001. Daniel McGowan and Jake Ferguson were later convicted and sent to prison for their actions, despite their fervor for saving the environment. In terms of arson as their modus operandi a strange irony exist. For a group concerned with saving the environment, God-knows how many chemicals were released into the atmosphere by arson. This along, with the splintering of opinions on whether to target people instead of just focusing on property signals a sense of inconsistency. Additionally, mainstream environmentalists were shocked by the actions taken by the group and did not want to associate themselves with these events, believing that in a democracy public protest are better at seeing change (Curry, Cullman, 2011). They did not view violence as a viable option.

            Lastly, in addition to lacking consistency in their actions, and progressing the environmental cause, they seem to have ignored the legal framework in which logging practices work. One logger noted that for every tree that is cut down, six more are planted. This is a little more nuanced. In Washington for example, the law requires company to act within a certain amount of time to begin replanting. It also “...requires 190 "vigorous, undamaged, well-distributed" seedlings per acre; east of the Cascades, it requires 150 such trees” (Frisman, 2002). Oregon has a similar policy where the amount “...of reseeding depends on how productive the property is. Two hundred trees per acre must be planted in the most productive areas, 125 trees per acre in moderately productive areas, and 100 trees per acre in the least productive areas (Frisman, 2002). Both states, where these arsons took place already have sustainable practices in place.

Works Cited

Jarboe, James. (2002). The Threat of Eco-Terrorism. [online] Available at: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

Curry, Marshall, Cullman Sam. If a Tree Falls. 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmZkNNJqr1I

Frisman, Paul. 2002.Cga.ct.gov. (2018). REFORESTATION LAW IN OREGON AND SELECTED OTHER STATES. [online] Available at: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0832.htm