http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-jay-brown/confessions-of-an-eco-terrorist_b_1413478.html
Try this sometime. Walk down a detergent aisle in any grocery store, and take a look at the boxes of cleaning products. Once full of caustic chemicals and harsh abrasives, these cartons are now recycled cardboard filled with liquid or powder that claims to be a gentler, natural alternative to the toxicity of the past. The green movement's rhetoric is that of passivity, evoking a peaceful, pastoral return to a simpler way of existing. It actively distances itself from images of violence against people, animals, plants, and the environment. Then there's men like Peter Jay Brown, Paul Watson, and the other members of Sea Shepherd, who embrace the violent imagery and the media attention that this violence brings. Dubbed eco-terrorists, they actively engage agencies that they feel violate the environment, such as Japanese whalers. In this piece which serves as an introduction to a yet-to-be-released movie about the effects and advances of violent environmentalism, Peter Jay Brown invites people to take a more active role in preserving "Spaceship Earth." What he does not tell the audience is that he is affiliated with an organization that harbors vandals, violent anarchists, serial arsonists, and people who have no problems with harming other humans. This creates an ethical dilemma over the results that this kind of movement produces.
According to Brown, the green movement has stagnated and environmentalists are not making any real impact. Greenwashing is rampant and human greed and hedonism is slowly choking the planet; only organizations that are willing to go beyond the feel-good rhetoric of the green movement are able to accomplish anything. He uses the example of how his organization forced Japanese whaling companies to step back their activities, making the oceans healthier and helping to preserve the species. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his group's methods, it is impossible to deny that they have gotten results.
I think that the real importance of this article is the introduction of the idea of a paradigm shift in the environmental movement. Brown states that the era of environmental consciousness is over; now it is time to "learn to govern." He asks "why in a country so "green" is it so difficult to truly accomplish anything positive for our environment?" It's a fair question; why is it in this new era of environmental consciousness and individual and corporate concern are environmental conditions still deteriorating?
This article does not present a wealth of new information, but it asks a lot of important new questions. Where is the future of the environmental movement? Can it accomplish its goals using pacifistic rhetoric, or will environmental activists be forced to take aggressive actions to further their cause? Personally, I think the green movement will lose itself if the aggression that Brown champions takes effect. While changes might be enacted, they will come at the cost of associating the environmental movement with a legacy of violence. It seems to me that ultimately these radical environmentalists have forgotten that humanity, too, is a part of the environment.
This insight into the mind of an eco-terrorist is pretty fascinating, and does bring up some interesting issues. Reading the article, up until the last paragraph, you wouldn't really guess that this guy is a violent, and I have to say I agree with most of what he says. That tells me that the "radical" label eco-terrorists are given is mainly due to the methods they use and not what they are actually trying to achieve. Therefore, I do think it is fair to question whether using violence is really a good strategy to engage the public on a large scale, as it seems to just alienate them. I am also not sure that the whaling example here is really proving the groups impact, since as Brown points out, there are many other reasons for whaling's decline.
ReplyDeleteThis article does have me conflicted though. I agree with Brown that other residents of Earth, not just humans, need a stronger voice, especially in dealing with the actions of our species, which as he puts it "produce nothing important for a healthy planet." And as we have learned in class, there is often violence, structural or direct, involved with studies of environmental injustice. So we have to fight violence with violence? I'm not so sure. I do think Brown makes a good point about "learning to govern." "Green" is in, but how is that actually translating to environmental health and sustainability? As Brown points out, countries like Germany are already on the verge of governing better practices and incorporating this green sensibility. As he doesn't point out, there has been no eco-terrorism (that I know of) involved with these efforts. While achieving true sustainability might require a "violent" overhaul of our culture and society, I do not think this requires actual violence.