Arak Journal

Radical Solutions: Ecoterrorism in the Modern World

By Aidan Duffy, Class of 2026

For those of us who are cognizant of the negative effects of human activity on the environment, it can be extremely difficult to assume a passive role and merely watch the environment get destroyed and have no real power to stop these effects. Many climate change protestors take to the streets to protest issues such as the overreliance on fossil fuels, the lack of accountability for large corporations that pollute the environment, or any other harmful actions taken by those in power, whether they be politicians or business leaders. However, these protests often do not lead to any substantial change in an era where, according to the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s comprehensive report, “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis,” we only have about eleven years to change the industrialized world’s emission practices to prevent permanent anthropogenic climate change (Fischetti).

Moreover, leading scientists, Dr. Hagedorn and others, explain that “At present, many young people are demonstrating persistently for climate protection and the preservation of our natural resources. As scientists and scholars, and based on robust scientific evidence, we declare: these concerns are justified and supported by the best available science (79). They also note that “The current measures for protecting the climate, biodiversity, and forest, marine, and soil resources, are far from sufficient” (79). Such feeling of a lack of substantial power regarding making environmental changes leads to some people adopting radical, oftentimes violent actions. These violent actions for the purpose of environmental protection or policy change are often labeled, “Ecoterrorism.” To use an official definition, the U.S. department of justice defines Ecoterrorism as, “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally oriented subnational group for environmental-political reasons, aimed at an audience beyond the target, and often of a symbolic nature” (Eagan 1). Though a minority of disaffected environmentalists may resort to violence and sabotage after being exposed to the writings of eco terrorists, the most effective way for modern day environmentalists to achieve their goals is by protest and civil disobedience.

As stated above, young people today are feeling a significant amount of powerlessness when it comes to the health of the environment and climate. Young people are often taught in school about climate change and are the biggest stakeholders in the movement to address the issue because they are the ones who will have to inherit the planet and deal with the consequences of the previous generations’ actions. In “Youth Climate Activism in the United States,” Melanie Meunier reports, “Young Americans take the issue much more seriously than the population as a whole: in a recent nationwide online survey of 1,000 youths aged 18 to 29 years old, 80% of the respondents felt that ‘global warming is a major threat to human life on earth as we know it’” (qtd. in Meunier). Meunier expands, explaining that for the youth to remedy their feelings of doom in regard to climate change is action and empowerment. Being that young people are unable to vote, they feel trapped and powerless especially in a world where political leaders and corporations are either refusing to take action to address climate change or are actively contributing to the problem. With no legal options for these young people to take, some utilize violence and sabotage.

Given the increasing concern and frustration among young people regarding climate change, it’s important to ask: where are they getting these ideas and motivations for ecoterrorism? Based on my own experience on the internet, I’ve noticed a surge of posts and comments over the past couple of years that express aspects of ecoterrorism to varying degrees. While some of these posts don’t directly support ecoterrorism, they often prime recipients for future content that does. For example, about two years ago, I frequently encountered posts with primates urging viewers to “reject modernity and embrace ‘monkey’.” While this message doesn’t explicitly advocate for violent means of dismantling the post-industrial system, it does expose younger users to ideas of techno-skepticism and misanthropy, potentially contributing to the acceleration of ecoterrorism.

The posts that particularly alarmed me were those related to the Unabomber, an American criminal who carried out a 17-year bombing campaign that killed three people and wounded 23 in an attempt to incite “a revolution against the industrial system” (Ray). Many posts about climate change feature an image of Ted Kaczynski in the background, with users referring to him as “Uncle Ted.” This connection between the portrayal of the negative impacts of climate change and the image of Kaczynski sends a message that Kaczynski was right, and that ecoterrorism is necessary to properly address the issue. In fact, the FBI explains, “Violent extremists are supplementing their traditional messaging—which can rely heavily on lengthy, academic-style recitations and philosophical arguments—with memes that are faster and easier to consume” (First Responders Toolbox). The FBI adds, “Such content allows quick sharing of vast amounts of information with like-minded end users and can normalize or lessen the gravity of violent extremist narratives” (First Responders Toolbox). Essentially, one avenue for the spread of these extremist ideas regarding ecoterrorism could be the use of memes that distill Kaczynski’s arguments into easily digestible content, which appeals to the disaffected younger generation of environmentalists.

The subject of Ted Kaczynski is particularly interesting due to the profound effect he had on the anti-tech movement. In “The Unabomber and the Origins of Anti-Tech Radicalism,” Sean Fleming explains that shortly after Kaczynski’s arrest, he initially allied himself with green anarchists and anarcho-primitivists. However, Kaczynski eventually distanced himself from these allies because of their focus on issues he considered to be “leftism” (207).

Despite this estrangement, Kaczynski began to cultivate his own following among those interested in anti-tech radicalism and ecoterrorism in later years. As Fleming notes, “Only years later did Kaczynski begin to attract a following that was committed to his brand of anti-tech radicalism” (218). He further explains in his book, “‘It is only since 2011 that I’ve had people who have been willing and able to spend substantial amounts of time and effort in doing research for me’” (Fleming 218). This growing influence of Kaczynski’s ideology can be seen in various extremist groups that have adopted his views.

One such group is the Mexican terrorist organization known as ITS (Individualistas Tendiendo a lo Salvaje), which drew direct inspiration from Kaczynski (Fleming 218). Much of ITS’s writings are paraphrases of Kaczynski’s works. For instance, when discussing the sense of meaninglessness caused by the post-industrial system, ITS echoes Kaczynski’s outline of four key aspects: ‘goal, effort, attainment’ of said goal, and ‘autonomy’ (Fleming 216). Moreover, the group adopts much of the same vocabulary that Kaczynski used, including terms like ‘the technological system,’ ‘the power process,’ ‘surrogate activities,’ ‘leftism,’ ‘feelings of inferiority,’ and ‘oversocialization’ (Fleming 219). Having personally read Kaczynski’s manifesto, it is clear that anyone familiar with his work would recognize ITS’s direct influence, as ITS explicitly, also, rejects leftist terminology such as oppression, solidarity, mutual aid, class struggle, hierarchy, inequality, injustice, and imperialism. This anti-leftist stance mirrors Kaczynski’s own views, as the beginning of his manifesto is a critique of leftism and its proponents, even suggesting that leftists are not psychologically healthy.

Furthermore, Fleming provides further insight into how ITS differentiates itself from typical radical environmentalist groups, which often focus on property destruction rather than harm to individuals. As he explains, “The modus operandi of ITS is not typical of radical environmentalists or green anarchists, who tend to be saboteurs or ‘monkeywrenchers’” (220). He also adds that “Environmental radicals almost always target property rather than people. ITS, on the other hand, declares that it ‘is not a group of saboteurs (we do not share the strategy of sabotage or damage or destruction of property)’. Instead, as Kaczynski did, ITS aims to kill or maim people, such as scientists, whose surrogate activities propel the development of the technological system” (220). In this context, a group of disaffected Mexican environmentalists, feeling powerless in navigating legal and ethical means of addressing the perceived damage to the natural world, found inspiration in Kaczynski’s violent rhetoric. In short, Kaczynski’s writings have had a demonstrable influence on modern-day ecoterrorists, particularly in their explicit advocacy of violence.

While the term “monkeywrenching” that Fleming uses is not explicitly synonymous with ecoterrorism, it aligns with similar intentions. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, monkeywrenching is defined as “nonviolent disobedience and sabotage carried out by environmental activists against those whom they perceive to be ecological exploiters” (Palmer). The term originated from Edward Abbey’s 1975 novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which tells the story of four characters who use sabotage to protest environmentally damaging activities in the American Southwest. This book inspired the formation of Earth First, an organization that employed sabotage to prevent environmental destruction in the 1980s (“The Monkey Wrench Gang”). The novel’s popularity among young environmentalists led to “monkeywrenching” becoming a widely recognized term. Monkeywrenching is often seen as a last-ditch effort by environmentalists who have not succeeded in navigating legal or political systems to achieve their environmental protection goals.

Benjamin Farrer and Graig R Klein clarify this concept in their article, “The Political Roots of Domestic Environmental Sabotage,” explaining that “We argue that environmental sabotage is often motivated by the failure of other political expressions of environmentalism” (133). They continue, “Although most mainstream environmentalists would never consider sabotage, some radical environmentalists would, if mainstream political tactics have failed” (133). Though there is debate about which actions constitute monkeywrenching or environmental sabotage and which actions are explicit terrorism, it is clear that they share an overarching common goal. This shared goal unites them, despite differences in methods. Even political parties and leaders often share this goal and motive. They explain, “There is a parallel between the environmentalism that motivates the Green Party to push for public transportation and the ELF to commit arson against car dealerships” (qtd. in Farrer and Klein 135). Also, they add, “To take another example, the Green Party advocates sustainable housing and regulation to restrict unsustainable housing, whereas the ELF burns down new luxury housing developments. They target the same social problems but target them in different ways” (qtd. in Farrer and Klein 135- 36).

The environmental movement seems to have manifested itself in three distinct ways: first, those who try to work within the legal system, such as peaceful climate protesters; second, those who have been let down by the legal system and retaliate using nonviolent means, like monkeywrenchers and saboteurs; and finally, those who have been let down by the system and resort to violence as a means of achieving their environmental goals.

This spectrum of approaches raises an important question: What exactly are the consequences of using violence and sabotage as means of achieving environmental protection goals? Many of these ecoterrorists, monkeywrenchers, and saboteurs believe that their radical actions will lead to substantial change. In some cases, this belief holds some truth. For instance, monkeywrenching has proven to be extremely effective when executed in a peaceful manner that does not severely disrupt the everyday lives of people.

One notable example is the case of Julia Butterfly Hill, who engaged in a famous act of monkeywrenching by sitting in a treetop in northern California for 738 consecutive days, beginning in December 1997. Hill’s efforts successfully secured the 1,000-year-old redwood tree from logging by the Pacific Lumber Company. As Palmer notes, “Acting in collaboration with the protest organization Earth First!, Hill tree sat until the parties reached a long-term preservation agreement” (Palmer). In this instance, had no radical action been taken, the tree would have been legally cut down by the Pacific Lumber Company. However, Hill’s use of monkeywrenching— in this case, creating a safety hazard— allowed her to prevent the tree’s destruction and leverage a preservation deal with the company.

The impact of such successful monkeywrenching efforts extends beyond environmental benefits; they also foster a sense of personal fulfillment among activists. Magdalena Budziszewska and Zuzanna Głód, in their study on youth climate strikes in Poland, found that “the empowering aspects of activism were associated with a heightened sense of agency, a sense of belonging to a community, a sense of duty and ethical integrity, of finding one’s voice and learning new skills, and a sense of personal growth” (1). Based on these findings, I believe that the consequences of monkeywrenching and politically disruptive advocacy will likely lead younger people to find a sense of fulfillment and meaning, especially in a time when legal avenues are failing to accomplish the goals they wish to achieve.

On the contrary, eco terrorism and violence seems to have no effect on raising support for the climate movement. Mallika Talwar, of the Yale Environmental Review, found that violent protests had no effect on public support for climate action while peaceful marches and civil disobedience are effective at raising public support. Additionally, Stanford News highlighted the findings of Stanford sociologist Robb Willer, stating, “When a protest group with strong public support turns violent, people may perceive them as less reasonable. In turn, this leads people to identify with them less, and ultimately become less supportive” (De Witte). Overall, if the goal is to raise public support for an environmental cause, it is most effective to either peacefully protest or if that does not work, civil disobedience or sabotage is next most effective especially when done simultaneously.

To sum up my findings: many young environmentalists today are feeling a sense of doom and powerlessness when it comes to addressing climate change. From this point, a select group of environmentalists will turn to monkeywrenching and sometimes even terrorism, if influenced by the right people or media and feel a strong sense of powerlessness. However, even though violent action is the most extreme of all the avenues of dealing with environmental crises, it is not the most effective. The most effective method is peaceful protesting with simultaneous civil disobedience or monkeywrenching.

Ultimately, I predict that the rise of monkeywrenching and ecoterrorism in modern society will lead to two distinct paths for disaffected environmentalists. Some may turn to terrorism due to feelings of isolation and powerlessness, while others will choose to build community, protest peacefully, and simultaneously disrupt environmental offenders. Based on the studies discussed in this article, I also predict that those who adopt nonviolent, community-based methods will achieve better results in terms of environmental protection and will experience greater self-fulfillment and psychological well-being.

Works Cited

De Witte, Melissa. “Violence by Protesters Can Lead the Public to Support Them Less, Stanford Sociologist Says.” Stanford News, 12 Oct. 2018, news.stanford.edu/2018/10/12/how-violent-protest-can-backfire/. Accessed 4 May 2023.

Eagan, S P. “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-Terrorism.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 19, no. 1, 1996, pp. 1-18, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/spikes-bombs-rise-eco-terrorism. Accessed 4 May 2023.

Farrer, Benjamin, and Graig R Klein. “The Political Roots of Domestic Environmental Sabotage.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinions & Parties, vol. 27, no. 2, 2017, pp. 133–155.

Fischetti, Mark. “There’s Still Time to Fix Climate—About 11 Years.” Scientific American, 27 Oct. 2021, www.scientificamerican.com/article/theres-still-time-to-fix-climate-about-11-years/. Accessed 4 May 2023.

Fleming, Sean. “The Unabomber and the Origins of Anti-Tech Radicalism.” Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 27, no. 2, 2022, pp. 207–225., https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940.

Hagedorn, Gregor, et al. “The Concerns of the Young Protesters Are Justified: A Statement by Scientists for Future Concerning the Protests for More Climate Protection.” Gaia – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, vol. 28, no. 2, 2019, pp. 79–87., https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.2.3.

Meunier, Melanie. “Youth Climate Activism in the United States.” E-Rea, vol. 18.2, no. 18.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.12490.

Palmer, Eric . “monkeywrenching”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Nov. 2013, https://www.britannica.com/topic/monkeywrenching. Accessed 4 May 2023.

Ray, Michael. “Ted Kaczynski”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 Feb. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ted-Kaczynski. Accessed 4 May 2023.

Talwar, Mallika. “Do Climate Protests Shift Public Support for Climate Change Action?” Yale Environmental Review, 23 Feb. 2022, environment-review.yale.edu/do-climate-protests-shift-public-support-climate-change-action. Accessed 4 May 2023.

“Use of Memes by Violent Extremists” First Responders Toolbox. 13 July 2022 https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/128S_-_First_Responders_Toolbox_-_Use_of_Memes_by_Violent_Extremists.pdf

“The Monkey Wrench Gang.” Environment & Society Portal, www.environmentandsociety.org/mml/monkey-wrench-gang#:~:text=The%20Monkey%20Wrench%20Gang%20concerns,%2Dbuilders%2C%20miners%20and%20rednecks. Accessed 4 May 2023.