They're back - back in black. Just when many believed that we had seen
the last of Earth Liberation Front-style arsons, last week four luxury
"eco-friendly" homes near Seattle, valued at about $2 million each,
were set ablaze.
Several news agencies reported that ELF had struck again, and Seattle's
KING-5 news station showed footage of a white sheet with red spray
paint spelling out a "green" message - "Built Green? Nope black!
McMansions in RCDs r not green. ELF." RCD stands for rural cluster
development, and these unoccupied homes were built in forested land in
what some consider a sensitive groundwater area.
Despite the calling card, the FBI is withholding judgment on who may be
responsible. ELF, often referred to as a "leaderless resistance
movement," can hardly be held responsible for this arson, because it
doesn't really exist. And as far as membership to the non-organization,
all you have to do to is claim that you're acting in the name of the
ELF cause and you're in. It may take the FBI 10 years to find you and
give you your full membership package of being declared a domestic
terrorist, but the point is that these are the actions of irresponsible
individuals.
But even aside from the headline drama of ELF vs. FBI (and whether 21
and passionate can outwit 41 and nearing a pension), the real issue
here is determining the best methodologies for affecting environmental
awareness. Arson, as a methodology, cannot affect political and
corporate movement toward environmental conservation and sustainability
because the application of destructive means bolsters those who resist
environmentalism, alienates non-violent activists, fractures the
would-be environmental movement and triggers overwhelming punitive
legal and legislative responses.
No doubt the key component to choosing arson over more low-key activism
is the shock value and the certainty of drawing international press
coverage to the cause. Arson does get coverage, but it is completely
counter-productive attention. Not only does arson associate
eco-activism and conservationist movements with destructive radicalism;
it's lazy, unimaginative and is easily used by law enforcement,
lobbyists and congress as an excuse to obstruct legitimate pro-active
environmental moves, as well as justification for undermining all US
citizens' constitutional rights to speech, assembly and redress of
grievances as guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Violent, destructive eco-activists have long held to a mantra of
paradox, that to destroy is to preserve. But really, it's time to
embrace a new paradox: To develop is to conserve. The new green has to
be profitable and widely marketed. If all our products are developed in
line with sustainable and eco-friendly principles, then these
principles will dominate our lifestyle. On the other hand, if you torch
to protest, you gain nothing but a fleeting ego trip and a prison
sentence.
Business and development are ignorant organs that will orient
themselves to wherever market demand will make money. This weakness is
our strength, if we can find the innovation and insight to take
advantage of it. If you want corporate practice to reflect your ideals
of eco-sustainability, then create products, practices, markets and
demands in a positive sense. Instead of burning luxury homes, spend the
money for spray paint and torching materials on a few dozen
eco-friendly light bulbs, send out a press release (on recycled paper)
and donate those bulbs to someone who has been using traditional bulbs
and thereby using more electricity from generation facilities - in
short, encourage less impact constructively.
The maligned tokenism of arson is something eco-activists have to
really talk one another out of. Torching of SUVs in the early '00s did
not bring hybrid and smaller vehicles onto the road - they were
encouraged by general environmental concerns, gas prices and, more
importantly, it is market demand that now drives the growth in hybrid
and electric vehicle development. Some will say that this approach is
selling out to "the man," but in fact is actually a much more
satisfying and intellectual manipulation of "the man" because "he"
becomes the tool of your view for the future, rather than a hegemonic
"Big Brother" of some dystopian apocalypse.
On the other hand, eco-motivated arsons are actually the very grist
that the Department of Justice and the U.S. Congress need to justify
their dystopian moves, like the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 which amends the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 and classifies as terrorism any "use of force or violence by a
group or individual to promote the group or individual's political,
religious, or social beliefs." The recent arson clearly qualifies, and
probably meets USA PATRIOT Act federal sentencing guidelines for
terrorist arson as well.
Under the broadest terms of that open-ended 2007 act, even persuasive
force or written or spoken rhetoric in order to promote social beliefs
could be subject to prosecution under domestic terrorism law. This very
column could be violating federal terrorism law right now.
Clearly eco-arsonists have not thought this through. To derail the
threats to both our environment and to our liberty we have to recycle
the idea of destructive resistance and move forward with intellectual,
critical, marketable and legal methodologies.
Spark An Idea, Not A Match
Environmentally minded arsonists have struck again outside of Seattle, doing their purported cause more harm than good. From The Daily Emerald.