Eco-terrorism is a form of violent activity in support of environmental causes. This concept was introduced in the early ‘80s and became more and more popular with the expansion of violent environmentalist groups. The FBI has dealt with multiple cases regarding eco-terrorism, defining it as “…the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or their property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”
It is important not to confuse ‘eco-terrorism’ with other similar yet very distinct terms, such as ‘environmental terrorism’, ‘ecotage’ and ‘eco-fascism’. The former refers to the practice of targeting environmental resources or environmentally related infrastructure for ideological or political goals which are unrelated to the environment. The reasoning behind this phenomenon is that of trying to create more potential damage to the “enemy” with respect to attacking citizens in the first place. Environmental terrorisms takes the form of polluting water, destroying farmland (ISIS in Iraq and Syria) and forests (US use of ‘Agent Orange’ defoliant in Vietnam), oil pipeline sabotage (MEND group in Nigeria), setting fire to oil wells (Iraqi forces in Kuwait during the Gulf War), etc. These forms of violent acts can be framed in the concept of ecocide (see article “War’s Forgotten Casualty: The Environmental Devastation of Armed Conflicts”)
On the other hand, ecotage (ecology/economy + sabotage) refers to environmentally motivated sabotage aimed at creating economic disruption through direct, non-violent actions against polluters or unsustainable practices. Examples include subverting campaigns against corporations (such as those led by the activist James F. Phillips, also known as “The Fox”), tree spiking (inserting metal spikes inside trees to prevent logging) or targeted vandalism. Closely related is the concept of “monkey-wrenching,” a term popularized by Edward Abbey’s 1975 novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which describes nonviolent acts of defiance and sabotage by environmental activists targeting those they view as ecological exploiters.
The issue with eco-terrorism is that it would need to be more organized than it currently is to be considered effective. Almost all cases of eco-terrorism have been isolated, haphazard attempts at destroying “The Machine,” which is responsible for destroying our environment and rendering our planet uninhabitable. There are two fundamental problems with eco-terrorism. Firstly, no one (at least the vast majority) supports terrorism, and it rarely achieves strategic goals in the long term. Even if terrorism “succeeds” — that is, causes significant harm to infrastructure or results in a large number of fatalities — this often leads to a Pyrrhic victory. While short-term success may be achieved, this is not an effective strategy at all. For instance, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a radical offshoot of the group Earth First!, is a notable example. In their relatively short existence, they carried out several high-profile acts of eco-sabotage, including burning down a ski resort in Vail, Colorado, cutting power lines, and setting fire to Michigan State University.
However, their activities were ultimately curtailed through “Operation Backfire,” an extensive FBI investigation that resulted in the arrest and indictment of 18 ELF members. While their operations did cause significant property damage, they ultimately proved largely Pyrrhic: the group was dismantled, their actions faded from public memory, and mainstream environmental organizations condemned their methods. Rather than generating support, ELF’s actions cast a shadow over the environmental movement, as their violent tactics made environmentalism seem extreme and, for some, even taboo. In hindsight, a more moderate approach might have yielded longer-lasting support for sustainability and environmental protection.
Secondly, this form of terrorism was ineffective because it was, well, ineffective. While eco-terrorism caused significant damage to property values and critical infrastructure, it had no other notable impact. There are almost no cases where eco-terrorism resulted in fatalities. Now, this is not a defense of eco-terrorism or terrorism in general, but any and all successful terrorist attempts (such as the IRA during the Troubles or the ANC during apartheid) were highly targeted operations. Eco-terrorism simply failed to achieve this level of precision, and the combination of its extreme ineffectiveness and unpopularity doubly undermines its effectiveness.
The history of eco-terrorism suggests that while it may generate brief attention, it tends to undermine environmental advocacy by alienating the public and intensifying law enforcement responses, without creating substantial or sustainable change.
Recent acts of vandalism by environmental organizations, even if less severe than eco-terrorism, threaten to undermine the sustainability movement by once again shifting sustainability outside the Overton Window of public support. When groups like Greenpeace engage in actions such as defacing monuments, blocking roads, or gluing themselves to iconic artworks, their tactics may attract attention but risk overshadowing their message. While these actions are nonviolent and seek to highlight urgent environmental issues, they often provoke frustration and backlash rather than fostering understanding and support. In the eyes of many, vandalism still crosses a line, making environmental activism appear radical and reckless. This public perception can set the sustainability movement back, as people who might otherwise support environmental goals become wary of the tactics. Just as with eco-terrorism, the focus can shift from the cause itself to the disruptive methods, potentially damaging the movement’s credibility and losing vital allies among policymakers and the general public. Ironic as it seems — these activists might not miss the forest for the trees but may end up chopping down all public support along the way.
Eco-terrorism is ultimately ineffective as a means of advocating for environmental protection, largely because its violent tactics — such as bombing or burning structures — inflict direct harm on the very ecosystems it pretends to defend. By causing fires, explosions, and other forms of destruction, eco-terrorist actions release pollutants into the air, damage habitats, and disrupt biodiversity. This approach is counterintuitive: instead of safeguarding nature, it exacerbates environmental degradation and often sets back legitimate conservation efforts by fueling public fear and misunderstanding. Sustainable change requires constructive solutions, not tactics that sacrifice the environment to make a point about its importance.
By Valerio Costa and Federico Salvini
Sources:
The Rise and Fall of America’s Environmentalist Underground – The New York Times
