Ecoterrorisum is jusifable

Argument 1. Effect on public opinion To bring about long term environmental change we require a popular consensus so that government brings business to account over poor environmental practice. We also require citizens to be well informed of environmental issues and the practices of common brands so that they can make an informed decisions between competing products, providing incentives for business to be environmentally friendly. This process of informing citizens and growing political movements will occur much faster with eco terrorism that without it. While a protest march, a sit in or a conference might get a few column inches, taking radical action guarantees that the front page of every newspaper and the opening story on news channels will be environmentalism " this will promote debate and more importantly it will reach a lot of people who do not know about environmentalism. After all much of the pro-green press is very small and gets little distribution often it is in the form of internet articles and blogs that people have to make the decision to go out and look for themselves. Acts of eco terrorism will provide the impetus for people to go out and find this material, but also as environmentalism is now topical it provides the chance for pro-green writers to get their opinions published in the mainstream media. This opportunity allows environmentalists the opportunity to appear rational and patriotic by decrying the use of such tactics but making a case for some change. This is incredibly important as it breaks down the anti-establishment stigma that plagues environmentalism making them unelectable. Eco terrorism catalysis"s the mainstream environmental movement by providing environmentalists with a platform to engage the public. Many in the public will be sympathetic because of empathy for the eco terrorist as they were acting from their consciences and taking every precaution to not cause harm to people. If we compare that the authorities that often use brutal means to put down even peaceful protest (fire hoses, pepper spray) the treatment of eco-terrorists is often worse. Consider the sentencing of eco-terrorists who commit arson and arsonists, terrorism carries a sentence of life in the United Kingdom, arson can range between 2-8 years for simple arson. Simple arson is similar to ecotage in all respects apart from the perpetrators are careful to minimise the risk of injury to people; indeed not a single person has been killed by ecotage. Unlike terrorism the crime committed does not aim to create a climate of fear amongst the populace like terrorism " it seeks to influence the populous revealing and educating the public as to the many atrocities committed against the earth. The nonviolence that is an integral part of eco terrorism might ordinarily classify the act as simple arson with a much reduced penalty (about 20-40 years) this added time is in effect "thought crime" as it does not punish the act itself but the motivation. This unjust punishment delegitimises the government in the eyes of the people who now feel sympathetic towards the eco terrorist. An appearance in court also offers the opportunity to apologise, such an action would further demonstrate the eco "terrorists" pure morals " not being motivated by revenge or jealousy but instead LOVE of the environment and all who make it up. In summary who do you think the public will sympathise with more the multinational executive who doesn"t get his bonus or the eco "terrorist" who is mistreated by the system? This sympathy can only strengthen the environmental movement and amplify the underdog effect. The trial of eco-terrorists is an excellent media opportunity, during the process the offender can show respect for the rule of law by entering a creative plea like "I plead for the beauty that surrounds us". This turns the court into a forum for the accused to justify their actions while appealing polite and appealing to traditional values. This rationality dispels the stigma of environmentalists being anti-establishment indeed it highlights a link to traditionally conservative values such as preserving the countryside and environmentalism " showing them that they can be part of the movement too. By submitting yourself to the courts you are acknowledging your duties as a citizen under the social contract, this respect for due process will further challenge the assumption that environmentalism is radical and allow them to consider supporting green politicians. The failure of the recent Copenhagen talks illustrates that without green politicians active in the top polluters we will be able to create effective international agreements to face up to environmental issues Extinction is irreversible; over 135 species are being lost per day in the Amazon alone. Why are these species important? Biodiscovery is a branch of science that finds useful compounds; the destruction of ecosystems such as the rainforest threatens to wipe out these species before we can synthesise new drugs and chemical catalysts. Biodiversity also creates great beauty that is worthy of preserving in and of itself. Need I even mention climate change and the role the rainforest plays in regulating the greenhouse effect? Eco terrorism by informing the populous of environmental threats, by inspiring them to consider green politics, by dispelling the stigma around green politics and creates sympathy for the activist and the cause! Argument 2. Eco terrorism as a force of market regulation The state acts to mediate between right claimants in society, if the state is influenced disproportionately by corporate interests and a misinformed electorate it cannot create a just society. Eco terrorism seeks to redress the balance between the property rights of business, animals and people of the future by acting as a vigilante market regulator. The state is not preventing irreversible damage being done to the environment such that future generations cannot continue to profit from it as we have had the opportunity to, as well as preserving their natural heritage witch forms an important part of our culture. Sentient animals also have rights by virtue of experiencing pleasure and pain like us, regardless of whether you accept that we and future generations benefit from having stable ecosystems from which we can extract resources from (for example see overfishing or over farming) and as I mentioned earlier extinction would also prevent biodiscovery from taking place. Hence we have a moral obligation to regulate the market, as the state is incapable of doing this in the short term and because continued environmental damage may be irreversible - the next best thing to state regulation. Eco terrorism regulates the market by creating fiscal incentives for business to behave in an environmental way, the costs of rebuilding and the loss of profit as well as increases in insurance and security costs that affect the entire industry. I also discussed earlier the effect on public opinion; the act itself (targeted at a specific company) highlights poor practice. Consumers use this information to inform their product choice further incentivising business to behave environmentally. Businesses will be more likely to consider changing practices, especially for companies directly affected by eco terrorism they are likely to use new technologies when they rebuild. Short-term thinking in business inhibits sustainable development by focusing only on profits; eco terrorism forces them to improve environmental policy in the short term once they are forced to do this the benefits become such as positive brand identification that gives the company an advantage over competitors. Indeed this advantage over rivals will prompt them to follow suit. Eco terrorism produces changes in business practices in the short term and challenges them in the long term resulting sustainable developments that benefit all actors. Thank you for reading.