"ECO-TERRORISM" ON GREEN WEB

If you follow environmental activism of the radical kind, you know that the federal government’s anti-environment campaign of fear and loathing labels it “eco-terrorism.” And if you’re interested in the full spectrum of debate on this controversial term, Green Web is a particularly good research resource. Searching the hot-button phrase on Green Web brings up a great mix of pro and con material. Through its swicki formula of user frequency and voting, Green Web’s results cover both sides in nearly equal measure—and come up with material that doesn’t appear in “eco-terrorism” searches on other search engines like Greenmaven or Google.

On one side, for example, appears a provocative blog by conservative philosopher Onkar Ghate, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He argues that eco-saboteurs are terrorists because they attack the forces of social progress:

…It remains worrisome that we still dismiss such terrorists as deranged individuals who pervert the ideology of environmentalism. Even more worrisome is that few of us intellectually grasp, and then rise to defend, the irreplaceable values under attack by environmental terrorists. Their targets are not, fundamentally, a particular ski resort, logging company, meatpacking center or medical research project, but what these represent: human technology, human progress, human life.
Man's life is sustained--and made longer, healthier, happier--by industrial development and technological progress.

And on the opposing side is an op ed piece by David Roberts, a popular environmental blogger. Roberts attacks the faulty logic behind the FBI’s labeling of eco sabotage as terrorism:

"Terrorism is terrorism -- no matter what the motive," declared FBI director Robert Mueller.

What's the difference between burning trucks for kicks and burning trucks as an "eco-terrorist"? The motive. What's the difference between burning down an abortion clinic (crime) and burning down an animal-testing lab (terrorism)? The motive. Of course the motive matters -- that's how terrorism is defined. "Eco-terrorists" are being specially targeted precisely because of their motives. Mueller doth protest too much.

And finally, Green Web’s link to Bookrags provides a list of scholarly articles that weigh in with more objective views on the issue. Many of these pieces come from compendiums, encyclopedias and journals. An article in The St. James Encyclopedia neatly summarizes why the term “terrorism” applied to eco-sabotage prompts conflicting reactions:

…eco-terrorism is a highly contested term. Ron Arnold, a leader of the anti-environmental "Wise Use" movement, argues for a broad definition of eco-terrorism that includes almost every crime committed on behalf of the environment, even acts of civil disobedience. Many environmentalists, however, passionately disagree with this usage, preferring to distinguish between "eco-sabotage" (an assault on inanimate objects) and terrorism (an assault on living things). The environmentalist David Brower, for instance, has argued that the real terrorists are those who pollute and despoil the earth, not those who seek to protect it.

These examples provide a range of fresh, credible information and opinions on the subject of “eco-terrorism.” And they all appear within the first three pages of an “eco-terrorism” search result on Green Web. By comparison, only David Roberts’ blog appears on Google—and only after slogging through over 30 pages of search results for “eco-terrorism.” Such is the beauty of a customized eco search engine like Green Web.