|
|
|
|
Seattle's Street of Dreams is now a street of nightmares. The collection of multimillion dollar luxury homes was recently burned to the ground by people claiming to be eco-terrorists. Eco-terror, to paraphrase the FBI, is defined as the use of violence against victims or property by an environmentally oriented group for environmental-political reasons. Acts of eco-terrorism, also known as ecotage (a combination of the prefix "eco" and the word "sabotage"), attack people or things that threaten the environment or the wildlife it supports. Eco-terrorists, or "ecoteurs," as they're sometimes known, profess to value all life, so they don't strike to kill, but instead use scare tactics like arson to discourage their enemies. The Seattle subdivision, for example, was built near a stream that supports endangered salmon, and some opponents worried the homes would pollute the creek and nearby wetlands. SUVs, construction equipment and genetically engineered crops also are likely targets. While they're certainly no al-Qaida, extreme activists acting on behalf of animals or the environment have committed hundreds of crimes over the past two decades and inflicted more than $100 million worth of damage in the U.S.
Other countries have seen their fair share of terrorist acts as well. The increasingly violent attacks of eco-terrorists worry many people. Those familiar with the movement suggest that, although groups are not in the practice of killing anyone, it is only a matter of time before they do. Since these radical environmentalists oppose pretty much anything having to do with development or with the alteration of the environment, they have a lot of potential targets from which to choose. What drives these extreme activists? Why not just join Greenpeace or the Sierra Club? In this article, you'll learn more about the history, philosophy and tactics of the eco-terror movement, and you'll also get an idea of how it's organized. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace, which formed in 1892 and 1971 respectively, are two activist organizations that have pressured legislators, corporations and individuals to protect the environment throughout their existence -- without resorting to violence. According to the FBI, eco-terror was born in 1977. In 1980, the group Earth First!
S., the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, was formed when some members of the group Earth First! Like the members of ELF, eco-terrorists are radical environmentalists who believe traditional ways of bringing about change are not adequate. They view politicians as ineffective and believe that if something is to be done, they must do it themselves. Members of the eco-terror movement liken their predicament to fighting in a war. They suggest that animals and the environment are being attacked by humans and need to be defended. Other extreme environmental and animal rights groups compare their fight to the struggle to free slaves or to win women the right to vote. Those advocates didn't sit back and wait for their rights to be handed to them, activists say. They fought hard and often broke the law. Eco-terrorists argue that they are not the enemy; the enemy is all the people they are fighting. But some environmental groups disagree. They fear that the violent extremism displayed by groups like ELF could create a backlash against the entire environmental movement and make it harder for more mainstream groups to effect change.
After all, they don't seek to intentionally harm anyone, even those they see as "the system." And how bad can they be if they're defending pristine waters, open prairies and cute little bunnies? Pretty bad, according to the FBI, who considers them a top priority. Bad enough to be charged with federal crimes in some cases and sentenced to decades in prison -- if they can be caught. On the next page, you'll learn more about the organization and tactics of eco-terror groups and why they're so difficult to track down. So while they may have caused some serious financial damage when they torched the Seattle homes, no one was hurt in the fires because the houses were unoccupied. The preferred method of destruction seems to be arson, probably because it is relatively simple, causes significant destruction and gets a lot of attention. They also employ other tactics designed to disrupt normal operations at target businesses and to discourage people from engaging in environmental destruction.
|
|
