Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

When Does Green Rage Become Ecoterrorism?

By Matt Rasmussen, Orion Magazine. Posted January 25, 2007.


Are radical environmentalists wackos, terrorists, or prophets warning against environmental catastrophe?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

People like to think of the courtroom as a crucible of justice, but to me it's always seemed a diluter of passions. The atmosphere is restrained, so respectful and genteel it's easy to forget that people's lives hang in the balance. The system has a way of straining out emotion. It is designed to objectify, to control the soaring passions that created the need for the courtroom in the first place.

The perpetrators and the victims pour their passions into the settling ponds of the attorneys, and the attorneys, in turn, pour the diluted stuff into the deep vessel of the judge, and, by extension, into the even deeper water of The System. If you sat in the gallery of a federal courtroom in my hometown of Eugene, Oregon, last summer and watched as six young men and women entered guilty pleas in a string of environmentally motivated arsons -- crimes that the federal government describes as the most egregious environmental terrorism in the nation's history -- you might have wondered where the passion had gone. One by one, in a windowless chamber, the defendants answered perfunctory questions posed by Judge Ann Aiken, who sat Oz-like in the highest chair. One by one, they listened to descriptions of the crimes they were accused of committing. One by one, they accepted the government's offer of plea bargains, and one by one, they said the word. "Guilty."

Kevin Tubbs, thirty-seven, an animal rights activist who migrated to Eugene from Nebraska, mumbled the word and shook his head. Kendall Tankersley, twenty-nine, who holds a degree in molecular biology, choked it out through a gathering sob. Stanislas Meyerhoff, twenty-nine, who wants to study auto mechanics, said it with an odd sort of let's-get-this-over-with politeness. They addressed Judge Aiken as "your honor" and "ma'am."

In the gallery, reporters scribbled. Federal prosecutors with American flag pins affixed to somber blue suits looked on dispassionately. Sentencing dates were set, and the prosecutors, seeking lengthy terms, asked the judge to employ guidelines issued under counter-terrorism laws when considering how much time each should serve.

Reprint Notice:

This article appears in the January/February 2007 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, ($35/year for 6 issues). Subscriptions are available online: www.orionmagazine.org.

The crimes to which the six confessed included seventeen attacks, all but one of them arson or attempted arson. The actions took place in five western states between 1996 and 2001. No one was injured. Sport utility vehicles were burned at a Eugene car dealership. So was a meat-packing plant in Redmond, Oregon. Other targets included federal facilities in Wyoming and California and Oregon, where wild horses and burros were let loose and buildings burned down. And in the most notorious action, a spectacular nighttime blaze high in the Rockies destroyed several structures at the Vail ski area. Many of the attacks were followed by communiqués issued under the banner of the Earth Liberation Front, a shadowy, leaderless offshoot of the group Earth First!, and by its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front.

Prosecutors say those who did the crimes took extraordinary means to conceal their involvement. They met in secret gatherings they called "book club" meetings, discussing details such as computer security, target surveillance, and lock-picking. They required that each attendee describe actions they took to avoid detection while traveling to the meeting sites. They used nicknames and code words. They called their criminal actions "camping trips," and dubbed the timing devices they attached to incendiary bombs "hamburgers."

"Terrorism is terrorism -- no matter the motive," FBI director Robert Mueller said in January 2006, after the Bush administration announced indictments in an investigation it calls Operation Backfire. "The FBI is committed to protecting Americans from all crime and all terrorism, including acts of domestic terrorism on behalf of animal rights or the environment."

Many were appalled. How could anyone possibly use that singularly loaded word to describe these acts? Where is the moral equivalence between burning an SUV in the dead of night (and doing as much as you can, given the nature of the business at hand, to see that no one gets hurt) and ramming a 767 into a skyscraper? When Eugene's daily newspaper, the Register-Guard, used the word eco-terrorism to describe the investigation, at least one reader took its editors to task, writing that the paper "appears to confuse arson occurring within the context of a nonviolent campaign with terrorism." The paper opted for the softer-sounding eco-sabotage thereafter.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: eco-terrorism, elf

Matt Rasmussen, a former newspaper reporter and editor of Forest Magazine, now runs Tin Man Press. He lives in Eugene, Oregon.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
some envirmentalists are terrorists
Posted by: richholland on Jan 25, 2007 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In France Mr.Bovin burneddown 2 MCDonaldstores and is considered a hero and voted into Parlement,

In Holland Folkert , a full time envirmentalist killed our popular politician Professor Pim and is in jail for 8 years( minus good behaviour =6 years)

I get the impression that materialiosm, money, products have more meaning in USA tan in Europe.

But there is good news;
1.your system will punish the softies, will frighten the idealists
2. the result will be the survival of the real terrorists, those who not destroy SUV but simply kill the rich.

Remember from history;
In Russia the 19th century people wanted some democratie
the czar punished them hard, so at least we got the Communists.
I think the american way to protect the RICH and forget the poor is the best way to breed murderos monsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radical environmentalism is a proxy for a socialist agenda
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Jan 25, 2007 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Underneath the rabid environmentalist exterior lies a desire to topple the capitalist system and impose a socialist order. Why else would they not work within the system to make changes as I and my fellow professional environmental scientists and engineers do everyday, rather than cause chaos and destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Silly Dunce Brad!!! Posted by: Douglas
» Emma not a socialist? Posted by: brad
» To jackburns Posted by: ISlamIslam
» What's wrong with Wikipedia? Posted by: jdylarid
» RE: Anarchists are socialists! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Anarchists are socialists! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Anarchists are socialists! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
There are unpopular terrorists-and terrorists with the explicit US stamp of approval
Posted by: Fantasyartist on Jan 25, 2007 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Case in point- Luis Posada, accused of blowing up a Cubana Airlines plane with the loss of over 70 lives in 1976 whom the Bush Administration refuses to extradite( not just to Cuba but to Venezuela-he is a naturalized citizen of the latter counter, arguing that he might be persecuted and denied a fair trial by Hugo Chavez's government) and then there are the anti-abortion extremists who have killed several doctors( but who mysteriously escape the designation of "terrorists" by either the FBI or the Administration). Yes sir, there are terrorists and unpopular terrorists!

Anybody think Uncle Sam speak with forked tongue on this issue?

Terry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uncle Same Posted by: jwg
One thing I don't understand
Posted by: mazel on Jan 25, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What good does it do to protest the destruction of the planet by filling the atmosphere with noxious smoke?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One thing I don't understand Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: One thing I don't understand Posted by: Jerome Alicki
Let's Get Some Things Straight
Posted by: jackburns on Jan 25, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, not all "green anarchists" want to totally bring down capitalism or "the system." Perhaps the folks in the Jensen camp do, but I think they're in the minority.

I'm of the Edward Abbey variety, meaning, I support not only human freedom, but freedom for all living things. I believe the hierarchy and centralization are antithetical to freedom, and I believe that capitalism is inherently inegalitarian and destructive, at least as we now know it.

The reason is capitalism as we know it today is predicated on growth. Growth ad infinitum in a world of finite resources. It is a non-sustainable system.

Yet, I believe there are non-violent solutions and possibly even ways to modify capitalism to make it sustainable.

As Abbey believed, I also believe there's got to be a sensible middle way. Some combination of simple capitalism (your neighborhood baker, grocer, furniture maker, for example) and socialism, meaning, food and energy cooperatives owned by the communities they serve.

Both must be bound by biological and geophysical constraints.

Instead of profit and growth being the primary focus, a fair profit, along with meeting the needs (not lavish desires) of the community, becomes the focus. The system is bound by biological and geophysical constraints. In other words, community based, steady state economics governed by biological reality.

And anarchism doesn't mean "no rules." We can govern ourselves in our local communities and expand governance outward from the grass roots level to bioregional federations and beyond. The key is that the power comes from the grass roots, not from the top down. In this model, anarchism is essentially the same as democracy.

The best news is we don't have to topple the state with violent revolution to accomplish this. We can start today. Start a neighborhood association. A food cooperative that supports local, organic producers. Ride your bike. Walk. Be the change you wish to see in the world and stop waiting around for something "big" to happen.

Let's be careful not to paint with a broad brush and equally careful with labels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where did Abbey... Posted by: brad
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: jackburns
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: brad
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: brad
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: jackburns
» RE: Where did Abbey... Posted by: WitchyNy
otto
Posted by: otto on Jan 25, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can really sympathize with the people in this article. It's frustrating when you fight against "the BIG SYSTEM" and get ground up in the process. I try to think of myself as more of a passivist, but I can recall being part of a battle between a poor neighborhood and "a hostile take-over" by big trucking companies in Detroit. They could violate laws regularly and destroy the neighborhood; when neighbors could finally get a hearing downtown and come out in force - at great personal sacrifice - a lawyer could come for the company and request a two week delay to prepare their case; this sort of thing would happen over and over until no one showed up from the neighborhood. I used to think of shooting out truck tires at night, or finding ways to sabbatage them - illegally, of course, just as they were doing illegal things and getting away with it. Time will tell what works best...Was it just King's none-violence that helped civil rights, or was it helped by more violent threats of other black leaders like Malcolm X, and riots in the cities? Who knows? Maybe we need a bit of both! Would the American Revolution eventually have been successful without taking up arms?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: otto Posted by: ekwhite
» With King... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
The real terrorist is the US Government...
Posted by: baldo on Jan 25, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is the US in Iraq ????????????????
I never hear anybody asking this question. It was an illegal, criminal act of aggression equal to what the germans did in starting WW2 and for which a few responsible officers paid by being hanged.
Bush and Cheney (and Blair) should be hanged, if we want justice. They deserve it much more that So Damn Insane did.
But at least let's start with impeaching the bastards...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Living in Eugene, Oregon
Posted by: Jerome Alicki on Jan 25, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that all of these arsonists had lived in Eugene is important to understanding their unique viewpoint. Eugene, Oregon - home of the University of Oregon - is surrounded by ancient forest. It is a short drive, and for some even a short walk, to some of the oldest trees remaining in North America. These forests have for decades been under the axe by the ever increasing mechanization of the timber industry. The mountainsides that were once lush with temperate forest have been completely denuded, stripped bare by clearcut logging. Once rich salmon streams are now filled with eroding sediment, choking the life out of them. One cannot remain silent in the face of this overwhelmingly obvious destruction. The sheer grace and majesty of these forests lie in ruins, turned into 2x4's for new home construction, driving the forest's creatures to the brink of extinction. Any man or woman who ventures up the mountain sides to stand in these clearcuts will be brought to his knees with an enormous feeling of grief. It brings many to tears, and it brings many more people to action. The timber companies and US Forest Service are responsible through their horrific policies for creating a generation of young people who feel there is no other option but to lash out and try to stop the destruction. Our government does nothing in the face of this true evil and is equally culpable for this new psychology of Earth liberation. This has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, or any other -ism. It has everything to do with protecting what little is left of the diversity of life that used to live on this continent. These men who today are "guilty" will one day be seen visionary as climate change worsens and the forests die due to the abuse they have suffered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Living in Eugene, Oregon Posted by: Jerome Alicki
» the long term... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Living in Eugene, Oregon Posted by: cmaukonen
COINTELPRO, emotional immaturity and 'radical environmentalism'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 25, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article, but it barely touched the surface of the real agenda behind the high-profile prosecutions of a few wound-up arsonists - it's just part of an ongoing attempt to associate the phrase 'environmentalist' with 'wacko crazy tree-hugging chained-up loonies' in the popular culture.

The phrase 'environmentalist' is yet another one of those public 'branding' terms, like liberal or conservative and so on. Really, any sane person wants to breathe clean air,drink clean water, and eat unpoisoned food, regardless of their political stance; similarly most people understand that wilderness and biodiversity are important for many reasons; on the other hand, large corporations from General Electric to WR Grace to Peabody Coal whose activities pollute air, food and water with all manner of toxic materials, and who view forests as nothing but standing cash, would like to marginalize any voices who call for their restraint.

Thus, what you have is large sections of the FBI and the JTTF who infiltrate various groups and encourage them to get into violent activities, even though any rational person recognizes that, while it may be very 'thrilling' to go smash windows, it actually hurts your 'cause' - and is exactly what the psyops types in the FBI and the corporate public relations sector like to see.

For example, Stepping Up the Attack on Green Activists
By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted September 30, 2005.


This all ties into the ongoing issue of domestic spying on political activists by government agents operating under the guise of 'anti-terrorism'; see this Newsweek article: Profiling: How the FBI Tracks Eco-Terror Suspects Nov21 2005.

Similar approaches have been used to taget anti-war groups; the infiltration of these groups by undercover police officers who then engage in disruptive and/or violent behvaior is fairly well documented: for example see MSNBC: ACLU finds spying of anti-war, activist groups; Group catalogs covert surveillance, decries evidence as ‘abuse of power’".

There are many other reports from various websites, but these media reports are the best-documented cases. Essentially, what Bush&Co. have used the Patriot Act for is to spy on and attack its political opponents within the US without judicial oversight; the preexisting provisions under FISA were sufficient to halt terror attacks (as the Aug 6th PDB, and Coleen Rowley's memo to the FBI director, and the 7/10 Tenet-Rice meeting all show).

This manic behavior on the part of the FBI and Justice under Gonzales and Mueller extends to recording everything that every US citizen views online, as well: Gonzales pressures ISPs on data retention, May 25 2006. Obviously, Cheney wants to institute a repressive police state in the US - these people are very anti-deomcratic.

Ever wonder what it was like to live under the East German Communist Stasi system? Fear, paranoia, mistrust - those are the tools of totalitarian states. This is also why focused non-violent action (calmly reporting the real news, for example) is far more effective then hooting and howling like an outraged chimp. Follow the money, people... that's what this is really all about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Twenty-three years?
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 25, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twenty-three years for burning three SUVs? Talk about overkill. I'd be seriously surprised if any of these cars (unburned) were on the road twenty-three years later. How about financial redress for the owners of the unfortunate cars? Or maybe the perpetrators could have to buy new hybrids for the owners of the SUVs and pay for their insurance? But twenty-three years? It's only property damage, and pretty minor property damage. It's not like anti-abortion activists killing a doctor...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, thats sad... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Way to go Alternet!
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 25, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now THIS is the kind of article I hope for from an 'alternative' site.

If I remember right...one of these Oregon slaughterhouses was for killing horses and the town refused to allow it to be rebuilt after the fire.
To me that says much.

As a wild horse activist in Nevada, I watch our wild horses being rounded up in ways and numbers that are clearly against the law. At BLM meetings the public is not allowed to speak...we can only submit written comments.

The BLM tells the public that we overpopulated with wild horses. It is a lie. The wild horses are the spotted owls of Nevada. They must get rid of them first...as the law protects the wild horses...so they can then privatize and develop OUR public owned lands. They have been selling our lands in secret. The government will no longer say how much of Nevada's public lands are still public owned.

Peacefully working for change within the system does nothing when the system itself is corrupt.
It is like trying to win at gambling at one of Nevada's Casinos.
One way or another...the house always wins.

THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS A TERRORIST.
"When in the course of human events...."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The doomed politics of self-expression
Posted by: pondering on Jan 25, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My problem with what the Eugene crew did isn't that they destroyed property. A little property is nothing next to the magnitude of the environmental catastrophe they're quite right to be horrified by. (Taking a life is a whole different issue in my book, but that's a different subject.)

My problem is that for all the hand wringing and professed anguish and anger, these acts of sabotage are narcissistic and ineffective. They don't actually slow down the industrial juggernaut for a millisecond, as the saboteurs well know. They don't inspire sympathy from public, much less mass action, as the saboteurs well know. They risk hurting or killing the innocent, most of whom are likely to be working class people sweeping up the animal lab or driving the logging truck.

This, after all, isn't real sabotage -- like that employed tactically by the underground struggle of Nelson Mandela and the ANC under apartheid. The Eugene actions are symbolic sabotage. They are not about accomplishing anything, revolutionary or otherwise, and they're not really expected to. What they're really about is self-expression and the self-indulgent venting of personal anger. If that's your cup of tea, I guess it's a less offensive hobby than lots of others I can think of. But it's not mature or smart political action -- and getting thrown in prison for it doesn't make you a martyr.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The environment/ecosystem will be the ultimate "terrorist".
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 25, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse the hyperbole and anthropomorphism, but it's likely Vail will eventually be done in by an avalanche of the 100-500 year variety.

Unlike virtually any other Colorado placename, "Plastic Tyrolia" gets its name from a State Highway Engineer because there was basically (and wisely) nothing much there until 40 or so years ago; I-70 now goes through the Gore Valley where Vail is located. Vail Pass was not a traditional historical route across the Rockies, which should have been a clue. Because of the relatively short timescale of observations, the avalanche risk is difficult if not impossible to quantify.

Vail Resorts (stock symbol MTN) does not put any info about this threat in its promotional or other materials that I've ever seen or heard of from casually talking to people who mention they've visited there. Obviously, informing people would alarm them and be bad for biz, which would be irresponsible.

P.S. - Here's the link to the High Country News article mentioned. Perhaps what the spotted owl is to the Northwest, the lynx is to Colorado.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*** holding up the sky ***
Posted by: CyberBrook on Jan 25, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sky is not falling, and the world is not ending, despite the massive onslaught of threats we face (greed and global warming, guns and butter, war and right-wing wackos), so we have to cope as best as possible by making this planet as sustainable as possible, making our communities as strong as possible, getting our bodies and minds as healthy as possible, making our political economic systems as democratic as possible.

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *** holding up the sky *** Posted by: WitchyNy
» You're right, man... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: You're right, man... Posted by: richholland
» Wow, dude.. what a revelation! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Antagonistic emotional trolls on parade - it's deliberate, folks.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 25, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few basics on propaganda (after Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels, as well as Donald Rumsfeld)

1) Rational and calm discussion of issues is to be replaced with emotional appeals and stereotyped exclamations.

2) Take a complex issue, simplify it to the point where a small child can understand your version of it, and then repeat, repeat, repeat.

3) Control of information is of utmost importance when it comes to shaping public opinion (this is how Rumsfeld and Cheney sold the Iraq war to the public).

Many of the posts on this thread reveal this dynamic; "Douglas" is certainly dedicated to point #1.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These people should have fought to legalize and/or subsidize hemp, solar, wind, etc ...
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 25, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
instead of getting themselves into trouble. CASE CLOSED !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the REAL reason
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 25, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe in arson or measures that could lead to the harm of anyone. However, despite the hysterics on the part of the government, FBI, and all other guardians of the ruling class---these environmental anarchist are a minischule threat.

I think the real fear of the powers-that-be is that this thing might tap into other, more widespread discontent of the masses. They know full well the smoldering resentment that many have to the blatant and growing inequality in the U.S. And they are afraid of people getting ideas from this sort of thing. They tell themselves: "we had a French Revolution and a Russian Revolution...we ain't gonna let a third happen".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the REAL reason Posted by: JoshuaLudd
JimZ
Posted by: jzelensk on Jan 25, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When growth in the economic system finally exceeds a tipping point and begins to systematically kill the biosphere, people alive at that time will look back and have a whole different viewpoint as to who were the terrorists and who were speaking and behaving rationally.

Perhaps many or most now living, like my grandkids, will be among those unfortunate ones.

I recommend Herman Daly, "Beyond Growth," and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we have here is language inflation
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 25, 2007 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so-called "eco-terrorists" are little more than high minded vandals. In the past, unions used to destroy property in labor disputes with little chance of prosecution. Nobody called them terrorists, even when it came down to shooting or physically attacking others. An eco-terrorist is a name for a boogey man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. For years now... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Dagny
Posted by: shoosta on Jan 25, 2007 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although these and similar activists may have good intentions, certainly the destruction of property is a violent act regardless of how careful the plotting may have been. Arson is a tricky business that potentially threatens the wellbeing of innocents who may coincidentally be at the wrong place at the wrong time. This does not seem like the best way to advocate for one's cause. Violent acts of destruction perpetrated by an individual as a response to corporate acts of environmental destruction is a flawed strategy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dagny Posted by: Radicalizer
Provocateurs?
Posted by: jdylarid on Jan 25, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An interesting article, one of the better ones on Alternet in awhile.

Comments made in the threads above suggesting that "working within the system" results in little or no change are true, at least to a degree. I have worked in the environmental "industry", if you will, and observed that it had little to do with substantive changes in environmental policy or impact. I understand the frustrations of those who care about these issues.

However, advocating vandalism and property destruction in place of "working within the system" begs this question: What exactly is the former going to achieve? I think it's safe to say nothing positive, other than perhaps a fleeting emotional outlet for those doing the destruction (a highly selfish act). What high-profile vandalism has done, and will do, is simply alienate the vast majority of people from the cause. It will also give the state more excuses to brand people as "terrorists" and stoke fear.

And the latter point raises the issue of who exactly "anarchists" are and what they represent. Anarchy is literally the absence of political authority. It's ironic that perhaps the biggest achievement of these "anarchists" will be increasing the agency of the state and law enforcement to control our lives. I often think some of these “anarchists” are agent provocateurs. Why else show up at an anti-war rally, for instance, specifically to destroy property (e.g. Starbucks windows, etc.), antagonize the police, and try to incite violence? We now know that the FBI had penetrated and was manipulating "revolutionary" groups in 1960s America, and there is no reason to believe it's not still happening.

As for branding them “terrorists”, this is clearly a misuse of that word and just dumbs the issue down further. These people are not terrorists; they are vandals, as was pointed out above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Provocateurs? Posted by: MartianBachelor
proof that eco-vandals are not terrorists
Posted by: antiapathy on Jan 25, 2007 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US govt has declared a war on terror.
Insurance companies don't pay claims for acts of war.
Since the insurance company paid millions for the vandalism at Vail, the vandals cannot be the terrorists we are at war with.

ipso facto

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting.
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Jan 25, 2007 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appears Lefties can be as stubborn in refusing to negotiate with their enemies and eager to wage war as they accuse the most right-wing conservatives of being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting. Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Interesting. Posted by: lwbaby
» RE: Interesting. Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Interesting. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
The Wrong Track
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 25, 2007 11:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Resorting to sabotage and illegal destruction of property is not going to work. It only aids those in power to continue what we don't want. Raising public awareness via education and protests, and engaging the political process for change is the way to go. There is much work to do. As for those already "in the system" claiming to be working on change from within, the vast majority of these engineer, PhD types have been co-opted by money and status within their corporations. Any idea of change from them is hopeless. Change must come from outside and be grass-roots, and emphasize the idea of non-violence to be most effective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On a geologic time scale this is all a bit narcissistic
Posted by: Riverman on Jan 25, 2007 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Earth is more resilient than we give it credit for, and has undergone and recovered from catastrophes over the past hundreds of millions of years that make our few thousand years of troublemaking look comical. In fact it's unlikely we'd even be here having this debate if not for the mass extinction [sorry, dinosaurs] that made room for our kind 65 million years ago. In the end every tree, SUV, and FBI agent we're worried about is going to be subducted back into the Earth's crust, melt down and erupt somewhere else as new land, and that is not a tragedy, it's a gift. The world has ended hundreds of times for millions of species over millions of years, and yet here we are, fretting about the latest go-round. Get to know the true timeframe this planet operates on and maybe you'll be humble enough to do something that really matters in the brief time you're given. I have no idea what that is, but suspect it doesn't involve burning SUVs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: xactly. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: xactly. Posted by: ISlamIslam
» Inexactly. Posted by: bornxeyed
We're warned about a "Malthusian end" -- does anyone know what that means??
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jan 26, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're warned that we need to "...return to old ways of living on Earth, before utter environmental collapse imposes a Malthusian end."

Malthus specifically warned us against overpopulation. So how come no one's even mentioned reversing human population growth?

We wouldn't be in this stinking mess if our population was much smaller. That should be obvious. Without ecologically-based birth control (starting NOW, not eventually), everything else only delays the inevitable.

Demand ecologically-based birth control! And don't stop, damnit!

To the imprisoned conservationists I say:

Your dedication is commendable. Please give some serious thought to what I've said here. There's plenty of work to be done convincing people to lower their birthrates, and trust me, it's challenging work.

Keep the faith,
Pat Kittle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Malthusian" doesn't mean much Posted by: jdylarid
» could vs. should Posted by: jdylarid
» RE: could vs. should Posted by: bornxeyed
» See the new article on dams... Posted by: jdylarid
Shrub...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jan 28, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and "Shootmeinthe Face," are responsible for 360,000 innocent Iraqi citizen deaths, who knows how many wounded, 4000+American kids, 20,000+ wounded, for nothing, and the people in this article are called eco-terrorists and possibly given life sentences?

Give me a break...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The premise is absurd
Posted by: cyberfarer on Feb 1, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The makers and drivers of Hummers are eco-terrorists. Exxon and the lobbies denying climate change are eco-terrorists. The developers of terminator seeds are eco-terrorists. The makers and users of chemical pesticides are eco-terrorists. The users of bottom trawlers are eco-terrorists. The builders of sprawl are eco-terrorists. The eco-terrorist are the politicians, corporations, and greedy consumerists who drive well-meaning people to so-called green rage. If you are sane and you know what is happening to our planet, you would be green with rage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]