SPOTLIGHT ON WILL POTTER

One of the most engaging and articulate bloggers on radical environmental activism is the journalist Will Potter. Based in Washington, D.C., where he is pursuing a master’s degree in writing at Johns Hopkins University, Will blogs weekly, often bi-weekly, about animal rights and topical green issues on his website, GreenIsTheNewRed.com. As a respected journalist whose work has appeared in mainstream textbooks and newspapers, and is referenced in non-partisan web news articles, Will manages the near-impossible: to wear his radical sympathies on his sleeve, and remain a legitimate, respected voice in today’s heated environmental debates. His blog has an authority ranking of 73 on Technorati.

The dozens of masterful essays featured on Will's website demonstrate his gift for synthesizing facts into insight, and tooling insight into powerful argument. A post from April, 2006 entitled, “The New War on Terror,” is probably one of his best known essays. It is included in the popular Thomas Gale series Opposing Viewpoints, which was distributed to 7,000 libraries and classrooms; it also appeared in Z and Counterpunch. This essay analyzes the FBI’s pursuit of seven activists who shut down an animal testing lab through lobbying and grass roots demonstrations. Although the activists committed no violence or vandalism, the government indicted them as “terrorists.” Will brilliantly skewers the ludicrous logic behind this “terrorist” charge:

That’s like saying the Montgomery bus boycott, a catalyst of the civil rights movement, was terrorism because it aimed to "intentionally damage and cause the loss of property" of the bus company.

He makes an incontestable conclusion—that the “War on Terror” is actually a front for corporate interests:

This is what the War on Terror has become: the Bush Administration can’t find real terrorists abroad, yet it spends law enforcement time and resources protecting corporations from political activists.

A recent post from March 2008, entitled “Before the Smoke Even Clears, Bringing Out the T-Word,” showcases Will’s rousing but cool-headed tack in the environmental debate. When four mansions in a model home development outside Seattle burned to the ground on March 3, investigators and the press rushed to judgment, claiming the fire was the work of “eco-terrorists.” Not at all surprised that the FBI would stoop to such speculation, Will aims his sword instead at the press:

Nobody injured, nobody home. But before the smoke had even settled, before the ashes had even cooled, before the Feds had even sorted through the debris, a chant of “Terrorists! Terrorists! Terrorists!” had started rising from politicians, corporations and, most disturbingly, the press.

Will charges that the L.A. Times, N.Y. Times and the London Telegraph prematurely indicted “eco-terrorists” in their headlines—despite the fact that no incendiary devices were found at the scene. He points out that none of the newspapers raised the alternative possibility—that the home builders set the arson themseves—because the houses had been sitting empty on the market for months. By the end of his post, Mr. Potter has laid the enemy bare.

Obviously GreenIsTheNewRed.com is a touchstone for this writer, and will be a major source of information and inspiration for this blog. As far as I can tell, the only issue on which I part ways with its author is animal testing. Will seems to unequivocally oppose it—and I support medical research on mice. Nevertheless, I expect I’ll be checking in with Will regularly, for his authoritative and trenchant take on breaking green news.

WELCOME

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."
-Milton Friedman

Anyone who made it to the sixth grade probably remembers thrilling to the account of the Boston Tea Party in their history books. That night in 1773 when American colonists invaded a ship in the Boston Harbor, and dumped 45 tons of tea in protest of unfair taxes and tea restrictions by the British, remains a shining example of our forefathers’ bravery and patriotism. This stirring chapter in our past taught us that certain principles, in this case liberty and independence, are so fundamental and incontrovertible that they naturally trump others lower down the scale---like the sanctity of public and personal property. This lesson in social values and protest seems newly relevant in the current debate on environmental protest in America, as our government implements an increasingly hard line on acts of sabotage and vandalism committed by eco-activists.

Like those angry colonists who destroyed a boatload of British-sponsored tea at the dawn of our nation’s history, today’s radical environmentalists target property and interests that have symbolic meaning for their larger struggle. SUVs, suburban sprawl, the logging industry and bioengineering labs are some of the more iconic objects of their disaffection. This writer does not condone their actions---but like others cites this historical precedent in the face of the federal government’s stepped up attacks on the eco-radical movement since 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act.

The concerted persecution of green activists is playing out in the media and courtrooms with a shocking intensity and bias. Environmentalists refer to it as Green Scare, citing frightening parallels with the Communist-baiting, McCarthy-era Red Scare. They object to the government’s definition of crimes against property, with no loss of life, as “terrorism.” As Jeffrey St. Clair wryly notes,

Even the feds can’t cite a single death resulting from an alleged act of eco-terrorism. But that doesn’t matter. After the horrors of New Orleans, it should be clear to all that it’s the protection of property, not people, that really gets the feds going.

The court’s application of a “terrorism enhancement” statute to crimes of vandalism committed as social protest, but defined as terrorism, can multiply a prison sentence six-fold. As St. Clair laments,

Destruction of property in the name of a political cause is now deemed an act of terrorism that can carry with it prison terms equivalent to first degree murder…

Green advocates point out the irony of the government specifically targeting environmental protest:

The same arson or sabotage that would get anyone else a mischief charge and a suspended sentence is considered domestic terrorism if committed by people who care about the environment. (Emerald City Scion)

Vandalism and arson are wrong and deserve to be punished by law, but a double-standard of justice is blatantly undemocratic. Having failed spectacularly at combating genuine political and religious terrorism, the government’s witch hunt of environmental activists comes off as a misplaced and desperate attempt to appear tough on “domestic terrorism.” But it’s a trumped up war it’s fighting. This blog examines some of the battles being waged in this war…

Image by Judith Lewis