From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eco-terrorism or ecoterrorism is the concept of terrorism conducted for the sake of ecological or environmental causes. The term is controversial and arguments center in particular on whether "violence against property" is to be included in the definition.

The term may 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.

Eco-terrorism is defined by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation's Domestic Terrorism Section 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." ^[1]

It has been stated that the damage caused by environmentalist sabotage from 1980 to 1999 amounted to $42.8 million.^[2]

An alternative and unrelated definition of the term "eco-terrorism" has also been come into use, as articulated by Paul Watson, the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in a commentary criticizing Japanese whalers: "an act that terrorizes other species and threatens the ecological systems of the planet".^[3]

While there is no consensus on the exact definition of "terrorism", the word is typically used to describe ideologically motivated acts of violence with the intention to intimidate governments or civilians. Acts meeting these criteria and committed in the name of environmental causes are described as "eco-terrorism" by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.^[4] Another term that is sometimes used is "eco-sabotage", because it involves disruption of a business or governmental operation, but is directed against things, property or machines that cannot feel terror. In contrast environmental terrorism is defined as terrorism where the target is the environment or natural resources themselves.

Acts of civil disobedience 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 proposed laws are raising civil rights concerns 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) in Texas called the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", 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."^[5]

Environmentalists have argued that "eco-terrorism" should mean the opposite of its current accepted meaning. They say that persons, companies and governments engaging in ecologically irresponsible activities such as clearcutting of forests are committing "terrorism" against the environment.^[6] 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.^[6]

Under any definition, "eco-terrorism" should be distinguished from "environmental terrorism", which is more properly described as attacks against, or using, the environment or natural resources for political or military objectives.^[7] At a conference on terrorism at the University of Georgia in 1997, William S. Cohen, then the U.S. Secretary of Defense, spoke of the possibility of rogue researchers developing "an eco-type of terrorism, whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes [or] volcanoes remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves."^[8]

Organizations that have been labeled as "eco-terrorists" in the United States include the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),^[4] and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF),^[4]. The FBI in 2001 named the ELF as "one of the most active extremist elements in the United States", and a "terrorist threat".^[4] Through their actions millions of dollars of homes, equipment, and research have been willfully destroyed by ALF and ELF operations, although they publicly disavow harm to humans or animals.^{[citation needed]}

The American Farm Bureau alleges the existence of a financial link between People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Rodney Adam Coronado's support group ^[9].

• List of Environment Topics
• Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
• Earth Liberation Prisoner Support Network (ELPSN)