The Odd Simplicity of Eco-Terrorism

Analyzing violent conflict through a filter of environmental issues is a difficult task. Convention wars are too complex for definitive answers to questions like “why are these sides fighting”. In the same way, understanding why terrorists commit acts of terrorism is an extremely complex task for social scientists. Yet when we consider eco-terrorism, the motivations for violence seem simple and clear. Eco-terrorists want to stop the exploitation of animals and the environment, so the destroy the monetary incentives for the exploitation.

As a student who is currently minoring in global counter-terrorism, I can attest to the fact that terrorist’s actions rarely have obvious syllogism behind them. Furthermore, it is usually difficult to link ideology directly with terrorism. Religious ideology does not directly link to hostage taking just as a nationalistic ideology does not link directly to hijacking. These extreme acts of violence need other factors in order to form a logical (not morally logical but syllogistically logical) sequence of justifications. When we consider eco-terrorist ideology however, there is an obvious link between wanting to protect animals/ the environment and stopping entities that harm them. The use of arson by both the Animal Liberation Front (the ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (the ELF) on veterinary laboratories and housing developments, respectively, has a clear connection to the pro- environmentalism ideology.

From an environmental politics perspective, this fits into Michael Klare’s position that resources are and will become a source of violence conflict. In this particular case, both sides seek to control the use of a natural resource; with one side seeking to exploit the resource while the other side seeks to preserve it. Following Klare’s position, these conditions would indicate a higher likelihood of violent conflict between the two sides. Given the radical and militant nature of eco-terrorists, and terrorism in general, violent conflict seems inevitable and therefore obvious.

This unique straight forwardness of eco-terrorism extends outside the context of terrorism and into environmental conflict. The theories relating to how the environment causes conflict, such as resource scarcity or the honey-pot theory, are inherently flawed because of their scope. These theories provide a single explanation for conflicts that are almost always more complex than a single explanation. While oil is often times cited as the cause for the Iraq war, other factors such as possible weapons of mass destruction, regional security, neocolonialism, etc. convolute any possibility of certainty and the real cause of war. Extending this logic, violent conflict could happen for a multitude of reasons. Therefore, even if the environment is a reason for why violence occurs, it still may not be the reason for violence. In the case of eco-terrorism, the individuals committing violence are militant about only the environment. As a result, the environment is the only syllogistic reason for violence.

So what is it about eco-terrorism that makes it so different? Neither the tactics used by eco-terrorists nor the targets of there terrorism are particularly unique. Even their abbreviated names are borrowed from small imaginary creatures. What makes eco-terrorism different is the issue they fight for is not ambiguous. The notion of Jihad, for example, can be interpreted in numerous different way. Interpretations range from a modernist perspective- where it is viewed in the context of 7^th century Arabia- to a militant fundamentalist perspective-which sees all non-Muslims as at war against Islam. These contradicting interpretations create the philosophical question of "does a problem even exist". This is common in issues involving terrorism, where the terrorists grievances do not even exist in the minds of most people. Regardless of whether you think animal/environmental exploitation is acceptable or not, it is undeniable that it happens and is harmful to the environment. Groups like the ELF do not have to justify the existence of the issue they fight for; rather, they need to justify why they value the environment so much more than private property or economic prosperity or human safety.