Introduction

Climate change has quickly become one of the most pressing issues of our time. Scientists agree with the fact that we are rapidly and steadily heading towards a point of no return, where any kind of action, however decisive, will not be effective in reverting the damage society has caused to the planet over the last few centuries, due to the excessive exploitation of natural resources and the uncontrolled emission of pollutants in the air.^[1]

Despite the rapid worsening of the situation scientists have reported, confirmed by a long series of what were in the past “once-in-a-lifetime” catastrophic events, most governments have taken little to no action to solve the climate crisis. While some States have signed international instruments,^[2] pledging their efforts in reducing emissions and saving the planet, very few havetaken measures that can effectively have an impact on climate.

For this reason, some environmental activists have turned to extreme measures to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem. These actions, better known as “eco-terrorism”,^[3] have their proponents and detractors. While some argue that the use of eco-terrorism is a legitimate form of protest against inaction towards the climate crisis, others criticize it as a form of violence that can lead to unintended negative consequences.

It is undeniable that we are facing one of the biggest crises in the history of humankind, and yet governments are not doing enough to tackle it, or sometimes they are even ignoring it. In this context, eco-terrorism can be a means to draw attention to the climate crisis and force governments to take decisive action against an emergency whose effects are becoming increasingly evident as years go by.^[4]

However, the idea of justifying acts of eco-terrorism is a controversial and complex issue: such actions can cause harm to innocent people and property, and it is not clear whether they can ultimately achieve their intended purpose. Looking at the bigger picture, this raises questions about whether resorting to violence and destruction can ever be justified, even in the face of a global crisis.

In this paper, we will examine both sides of the debate on employing eco-terrorism to raise awareness of climate change. We will start by discussing the current state of the climate crisis and the need for urgent action, then moving onto the definition of eco-terrorism in its various forms, followed by its legal and moral implications. Finally, we will explore alternatives to eco-terrorism and their efficacy in generating attention and spurring progressive action on the issue of climate change.

In the end, the analysis of eco-terrorism and its moral and legal implications conducted in this paper will show that eco-terrorism is not a justifiable way to raise awareness on the issue and call stakeholders to action. Some individuals and groups argue that the conventional legal frameworks and their enforcement mechanisms are insufficient in addressing the magnitude and urgency of the impending ecological catastrophe, and thus they resort to measures that exceed the boundaries set by laws; this perspective, however, raises complex questions about the limits of legal systems and the tensions that arise between the maintenance of order and the pursuit of justice in exceptional circumstances.

The body of laws and regulations set forth by states to ensure the stability and well-functioning of society, commonly referred to as ius, provides a framework within which individuals and organizations can operate, exercise their rights, fulfill their duties, and face the consequences of their infringement. Yet, as environmental degradation accelerates, some argue that the rigidity of established legal structures obstructs effective action and progress: the pursuit of true justice, also called iustitia, transcends the mere application of legal norms, as it encompasses the ethical principles and moral values that underpin – and sometimes even overcome – the law and its interpretation.

This paper will hence delve into the intricate and complex nature of the questions pertaining to eco-terrorism and the interplay between ius and iustitia.

The climate crisis

The terms “global warming” and “climate change,” often used interchangeably, are two distinct but related concepts which refer to different aspects of the same phenomenon. Global warming specifically refers to the long-term increase in Earth’s global average surface temperature due to human activities, a trend that is proceeding at an unprecedented and alarming rate since the pre-industrial period.^[5] On the contrary, climate change is a broader term, encompassing the long-term alteration in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates: it consists of the shift in precipitation patterns, wind patterns, humidity levels, and other indicators of climate, which can be caused by both natural factors, such as volcanic eruptions and solar radiation variations, as well as human activities, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes.^[6]

The two concepts are deeply linked: the main cause of climate change is human activity, mainly through the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, into the Earth’s atmosphere. These greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun, causing the planet to warm up.^[7] As the concentration of gases increases due to human activity, the effect intensifies,^[8] leading to global warming.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues our planet is facing, with consequences that are already being felt around the world. From rising sea levels to more frequent extreme weather events, the effects of climate change are far-reaching and can have devastating consequences for both humans and wildlife.^[9]

This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the climate change crisis, exploring the scientific consensus on its causes, as well as its effects on the Earth’s ecosystems and human society. Then, we will address the efforts being made by governments to mitigate and adapt to climate change, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to implementing sustainable practices and policies. Finally, we will analyze the effectiveness of current policies and examine the challenges faced by governments in addressing global warming.

Scientific consensus on climate change and its effects

The scientific community holds a widespread consensus that the phenomenon of climate change, which involves alterations in temperature and other climatic conditions, is the result of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels^[10] and deforestation.^[11] Most of the leading scientific organizations and institutions worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this same position.^[12]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body tasked with assessing the science related to climate change, has repeatedly confirmed that human activities are the primary cause of global warming. ^[13] In its latest 2023 report, the IPCC concluded that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases.^[14]

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has compiled extensive data on climate change, including temperature records, sea level rise, and greenhouse gas concentrations.^[15] According to the records, there is strong evidence that the Earth’s climate has warmed significantly in recent decades, with the last quinquennium (2015-2020) being the warmest on record.^[16]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the largest scientific organizations in the world, states that “the scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”^[17]

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit organization that conducts research and advocacy around environmental issues, attributes climate change to human activities, stating that “(…) it’s caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas, and coal.”^[18] They point to evidence such as the correlation between rising CO₂ levels and global temperatures, as well as the historical patterns of natural climate variability.^[19]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a United States federal agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment, states that “Climate change is primarily caused by the release of greenhouse gases from human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.”^[20] They also point to evidence such as the rapid rate of warming in recent decades and the correlation with rising CO₂ levels.^[21]

These are just a few of several dozen national and international institutions who hold the exact same view: climate change is real and is caused by human activity, and it has effects that impact the environment, the economy, and society as a whole.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration notes that climate change is causing a wide range of impacts around the world, including rising sea levels, more frequent heatwaves and extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation patterns.^[22] The increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events are leading to devastating consequences such as food and water scarcity, mass migration, and the destruction of natural habitats.

One of the most significant consequences of global warming is the rise in temperature across the planet. This has been especially noticeable in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where ice caps and glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.^[23] The melting of these ice sheets also contributes to rising sea levels,^[24] which can cause devastating floods and threaten coastal communities worldwide.

Additionally, higher temperatures can lead to more frequent and intense heatwaves,^[25] droughts,^[26] and wildfires.^[27] These events can have severe impacts on both natural ecosystems and human societies, including crop failure,^[28] water scarcity,^[29] and health complications.^[30]

The various negative impacts of climate change highlight the urgent need for countries, businesses, and individuals to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This can contribute to slow the rate of climate change and mitigate its negative impacts on ecosystems, economies, and societies.

Governments’ efforts in tackling the climate crisis

Efforts to tackle climate change have been ongoing for many years, with various governments and international organizations taking action over the past few decades.

In 1979, the first World Climate Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, marked the beginning of synergic international efforts to understand and address climate change: a call by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) led to over 50 participating nations and international organizations meeting to discuss the state of the global climate and potential strategies for managing the impacts of climate change. The conference resulted in the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, which is still one of the most important organizations involved in climate science and policy today. This was a crucial turning point in the global conversation around climate change, marking the beginning of sustained international efforts to better understand the issue and develop effective strategies for addressing its impacts.

Then, at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted. It is a legally binding treaty that sets out a framework for addressing climate change on a global scale. The UNFCCC has been ratified by 197 parties, including all member states of the United Nations. The Convention does not set specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it provides for an obligation for member states to develop and communicate national policies aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, to offer financial and technological support to developing countries helping them adapt to the impacts of climate change, and to report regularly on their greenhouse gas emissions and implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures.^[31] Moreover, the Convention has served as the basis for many subsequent international agreements and initiatives aimed at combating climate change.^[32]

A more decisive step in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions was taken in 1997, with the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty builds upon the provisions of the UNFCCC by committing industrialized countries to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with individual targets established in advance. Only developed countries are bound, placing a heavier burden on them under the principle of “Common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities”, because they are largely responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.^[33]

At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, States reached the Copenhagen Accord, a non-legally binding political agreement to limit the increase in global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This threshold was identified by the IPCC as a critical threshold beyond which the impacts of climate change could become catastrophic.^[34]

Finally, at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference the Paris Agreement was adopted, setting a goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The Agreement is a legally binding international treaty that builds on the earlier Copenhagen Accord, setting a more ambitious target to prevent the irreversible impacts on the environment that a 2°C rise in temperature could have.

The international efforts to address climate change is still ongoing, but there is still much work to be done to ensure that the goals set out in the Paris Agreement are met. In fact, the Paris Agreement has seen limited progress since its adoption in 2015,^[35] causing concerns over its effectiveness. Authors have highlighted that it is far from clear whether the treaty can actually deliver on the urgent need to de-carbonize the global economy, since there are several political and institutional challenges that hamper its implementation.^[36] Experts argue that the targets set by countries are not ambitious enough to limit global warming below the critical threshold.^[37] Projections say that the current pledges will lead to a temperature rise of 3.3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, which is significantly higher than the current goal of limiting temperature rise to well below 2°C.^[38]

The main issue with the Paris Agreement is that its binding power is based on a process of “naming and shaming.” Countries set their own pledge for climate change mitigation, that can be compared and reviewed internationally, embedding it in an international system of climate accountability. Clearly, this can be ineffective, as governments tend to express lofty aspirations while avoiding tough decisions.^[39] In addition, there are no penalties for failing to meet the goal.

But the most relevant problem is that, since it is an instrument of global diplomacy, it was negotiated among nearly 200 countries, each having their own interests and priorities. This meant that countries had to reach several compromises. One of these is the limited scope of the Agreement, as it focuses primarily on reducing emissions from the energy, transport, and industrial sectors without addressing other significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as agriculture and deforestation.

Together with the governmental, institutional, and political challenges, even more problems arise from the potential for countries to withdraw their participation from the Agreement. The United States is one of the largest contributors to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in the world^[40] and it withdrew from the Agreement under the previous administration. While it has re-joined since then, the possibility for States to retrace their steps still poses an issue to the implementation of the much-needed policies.

In conclusion, while the Paris Agreement represents a significant step in global efforts to tackle climate change, clearly there are significant obstacles to achieving real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Government efforts overall have been hampered by a lack of political will, vested interests, and the complexity of the problem. However, the stakes are high, and urgent action is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

This has prompted members of civil society to find ways to convince governments to take more decisive action. While some of these methods are nonviolent, a vocal minority has resorted to more violent acts, mainly aimed at sabotaging companies or organizations that are seen as contributing to environmental destruction. These actions, while being generally condemned by mainstream environmental groups, highlight the sense of frustration and desperation felt by some activists, who feel that peaceful protests and activism have not been effective in bringing about change.

What is eco-terrorism

As mentioned above, there is growing concern among many individuals and groups about the lack of meaningful action from governments to address the urgent threats posed by the ongoing climate crisis.^[41] As global temperatures continue to rise, populations are increasingly exposed to the devastating impact of extreme weather events, food insecurity, and displacement due to rising sea levels. Despite widespread scientific consensus about the need for urgent action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change,^[42] political leaders have often been slow to respond or resistant to large-scale changes.

This inaction has led to growing frustration and anger among many segments of society, particularly those who feel that their voices are not being heard by policymakers.^[43] Some individuals and groups may consequently turn to acts of eco-terrorism.

The objective of this chapter is to present a comprehensive overview of the term “eco-terrorism”, which is often used to describe actions taken by individuals or groups who feel that traditional forms of activism, such as lobbying or protesting, are not effective in achieving their goals of protecting the environment.

Definitions

There is no universal legal definition of eco-terrorism,^[44] as different countries have different laws and regulations regarding this issue. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify some definitions from notable sources.

For starters, the FBI’s definition of eco-terrorism is “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, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”^[45] Such definition of eco-terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by a group that is focused on environmental causes but operates at a subnational level – meaning they are not affiliated with a government. This violence is directed towards innocent people or property and is carried out for political or environmental reasons. The act of violence is frequently intended to send a symbolic message to a wider audience beyond the immediate target.^[46]

Secondly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)^[47] describes this phenomenon as an act that is considered a crime, with the intention of causing harm or destruction to an activity that is believed to be harmful to the environment. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)^[48] referred to eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence, sabotage, or other criminal means to harm the environment or the interests of those who seek to protect the environment.

Explanations of eco-terrorism are also provided at the European level. In the European Union this phenomenon is presented as the use or threat of violence by individuals or groups motivated by environmental concerns, against property or people associated with activities that are believed to harm the environment.^[49] For instance, in the United Kingdom eco-terrorism is defined as the use of violence and illegal means to further environmental or animal rights causes.^[50] In Germany, the Bavarian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution^[51] has identified extremist animal rights and environmental protection groups as potential threats to national security and has defined such groups as those that “(…) use violence or illegal means to exert pressure on politics, society, business or individuals in order to achieve their goals.”^[52] Again, in Italy eco-terrorism is defined by scholars as “The use of force, or the threat of force, against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate governments, societies, or individuals into supporting environmental causes.”^[53]

Consequently, even if there is no universally accepted definition of eco-terrorism, all definitions share some common features. These include the use or threat of violence, force or sabotage by individuals or groups to further environmental or animal rights causes, with the aim of instilling fear in the public or government and disrupting economic activities perceived as harmful to nature.

Examples

Eco-terrorism encompasses a wide range of actions, including vandalism, arson, and other forms of property damage aimed at disrupting activities perceived to be harmful to the environment.^[54]

Some eco-terrorists have been known to set fire to buildings and other structures as a form of protest against activities that they perceive as harmful to the environment. In this regard – between 1996 and 2001 – the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)^[55] claimed responsibility for over 20 acts of arson against businesses and government agencies they believed were enacting practices that were detrimental to the environment. In one high-profile case, ELF members set fire to a ski resort in Vail, Colorado, causing $26 million in damage. Members of the group were eventually caught and prosecuted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006, which expanded the definition of terrorism to include actions that cause economic damage to animal enterprises.^[56]

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a different group known for its extreme environmental views, has been responsible for numerous acts of vandalism and destruction of property in the name of animal rights. In 2006, members of ALF set fire to a UCLA^[57] research laboratory, causing $4.7 million in damage. The attack was carried out in protest of the university’s use of animals in medical research.^[58]

Another category of actions that can be referred to as eco-terrorism is the sabotage of industrial equipment of companies considered to be polluting or otherwise harmful to the environment.^[59] For instance, in 2008, members of ELF claimed responsibility for a series of sabotage attacks on four natural gas pipelines in Whatcom County, Washington. The attacks caused over $1 million in damage and disrupted the flow of natural gas to thousands of homes and businesses.^[60]

Furthermore, some eco-activists engage in direct action protests, which may also escalate into violent confrontations with police or security forces. This was the case with the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests, which saw thousands of environmental activists and Native American tribespeople protesting against the construction of an oil pipeline through sacred land and environmentally sensitive areas.^[61] The protests were largely peaceful, but there were some incidents of violence and property damage.

Finally, in recent years, there has been an increase in cyberattacks carried out by environmental activists targeting companies and organizations involved in industries such as oil and gas, mining, and forestry.^[62] These attacks may involve hacking into computer systems and stealing sensitive data or launching denial-of-service attacks to disrupt operations. Take by way of example the ransomware attack against Copper Mountain Mining Corporation (CMMC) in December 2022, which forced the Canadian mining company to shut down its extraction mill.^[63] According to security company Dragos, Ransomware attacks on industrial systems have been frequent in 2022: the cyberattack is one of a series of attacks that involve several manufacturing organizations, especially related to metal products and the automotive industry.^[64]

The debate on eco-terrorism

Eco-terrorism is a controversial topic that has sparked heated debates among environmentalists, policymakers, and the general public. In fact, while some individuals and groups may view acts of eco-terrorism as a legitimate form of protest or civil disobedience, these actions are widely condemned by governments, law enforcement agencies, and many mainstream environmental organizations.^[65]

In the context of eco-terrorism, the tension between ius and iustitia becomes very pronounced. Proponents of eco-terrorism contend that acts of violence or sabotage against industries and individuals responsible for environmental degradation can be considered well-intentioned and justifiable in light of the exceptional situation that the ecological emergency poses to society. However, these acts are actually committed at the expense of the principles of iustitia: the pillars of the legal system can’t be suspended in order to address the environmental concerns facing our planet, however pressing, as it risks undermining the rule of law upon which societies are built.

In this context, one of the main challenges for legal positivism^[66] is how to deal with moral principles that may conflict with legal rules. In fact, the perpetrators of acts of eco-terrorism may argue that their actions were necessary to prevent greater harm to the environment; however, from a legal positivist perspective, such arguments may be irrelevant if the act of eco-terrorism violates the law. This highlights the limits of legal positivism: while it provides a clear set of rules for determining the validity of legal norms, it cannot provide all the answers when it comes to addressing complex moral issues such as eco-terrorism.

The aim of this chapter is to delve into the intricate and complex nature of the questions pertaining to eco-terrorism and the interplay between ius and iustitia, finding that it is imperative to prioritize the preservation of the fundamental pillars of the legal system over the pursuit of a greater sense of justice: the foundations of the legal system must necessarily prevail in order to avoid society reversing into a primitive state of bellum omnium contra omnes,^[67] a perpetual war between people in the absence of rules on coexistence.

Justifications for eco-terrorism as a form of protest

Some argue that eco-terrorism may be justified in certain circumstances, particularly when traditional forms of protest have failed to be effective in bringing about change. Supporters of eco-terrorism argue that it is necessary to take drastic action to protect the environment, even if it involves the use of violence.^[68]

Indeed, it is true that despite decades of peaceful protests and advocacy, the climate crisis keeps getting worse.^[69] Consequently, many argue that non-violent forms of protest have not been effective in bringing about significant change on the scale needed to address this urgent issue.^[70] Therefore, advocates of radical environmentalism believe that, in some cases, eco-terrorism may be more effective.

Some individuals who support eco-terrorism argue that it is a form of self-defense against entities that are causing harm to the environment and other living beings.^[71] These entities are powerful, destructive forces that are immune to legal or peaceful measures, and thus direct action is necessary to protect the natural world. By taking action against these entities, supporters of eco-terrorism believe they are preventing greater harm to the environment and protecting the rights of non-human beings, through actions that, despite being against the law, are necessary to bring attention to pressing issues.^[72]

A strictly utilitarian^[73] way of thinking would also suggest that acts of eco-terrorism typically cause less damage than the potential apocalyptic climatic disasters resulting from unresolved climate crisis. In this context, acts of property damage can be seen as relatively minor offenses compared to the potentially catastrophic consequences of inaction on climate change and can thus be justified.

Lastly, some people believe that corporations and governments responsible for environmental destruction are not being held accountable by traditional legal means, so eco-terrorism is a way to hold them accountable and make them take responsibility for their actions.^[74]

Criticism of eco-terrorism as unjustifiable and counterproductive

Although some claim that eco-terrorism may sometimes be justified, it is nonetheless important to understand that terrorism always involves the use of violence or intimidation for political purposes.^[75] As it has been argued, “Eco-terrorism is not an abstract threat, but a real and dangerous phenomenon, with the potential to cause significant harm or loss of life. The individuals and groups who engage in eco-terrorism are willing to use violence and destruction to further their goals and pose a serious threat to public safety and national security.”^[76]

While eco-terrorism is often carried out with the intention of protecting the environment, it raises several ethical implications. One of the primary ethical concerns surrounding eco-terrorism is the use of violence to achieve environmental goals. Many argue that the use of violence is never justified, regardless of the cause it is intended to serve.^[77] Additionally, eco-terrorism runs the risk of causing harm to innocent individuals and damage to property, which can be controversial from an ethical standpoint.^[78] Indeed, ethical values advocate for reducing damage and eliminating unnecessary suffering and this concept is violated when eco-terrorism causes harm to innocent people or property.

It is also worth noting that violence and destruction do not necessarily lead to positive outcomes for the environment.^[79] In some cases, they can actually have negative consequences. For example, arson or sabotage can release harmful toxins into the environment and hurt wildlife habitats.^[80]

Furthermore, the use of eco-terrorism can be counterproductive to the goals of the environmental movement. Acts of violence or destruction can alienate potential supporters and damage the reputation of the movement as a whole.^[81] This can ultimately harm the cause of environmental protection and make it more difficult to achieve meaningful change.

Finally, another ethical issue associated with eco-terrorism is the potential undermining of democratic processes.^[82] In fact, acts of violence can weaken the legitimacy of peaceful protests and civil disobedience, which are important tools to achieve social and political change. In this regard, it should be noted that traditional forms of protest have been successful in bringing about change in the past. For instance, the Greenpeace campaign against whaling – that has been ongoing since the 1970s – was enacted by using inflatable boats to block the whaling ships from maneuvering and by using media attention to the issue. Ultimately, it led to the creation of the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling.^[83]

Consequences of eco-terrorism and legal considerations

The consequences of eco-terrorism can be far-reaching and significant not only for its targets, but also for society as a whole.

Potential consequences of eco-terrorism are property damage,^[84] physical harm,^[85] and loss of life.^[86] Additionally, eco-terrorism acts can have economic consequences.^[87] Attacks on corporate or government facilities can disrupt business operations and cause financial losses. Moreover, the fear of such phenomena can lead to increased security measures and higher insurance premiums, which can increase costs for businesses and consumers.

Eco-terrorism can also have legal consequences for those involved. In fact, from a legal perspective, eco-terrorism is a criminal offense that carries serious consequences.^[88] Those who engage in eco-terrorism risk being charged with multiple crimes, including arson, destruction of property, conspiracy, and terrorism-related offenses, which can ultimately result in lengthy prison sentences or the imposition of severe fines.^[89]

This is precisely stated in several legislative acts dealing with terrorism, though their precepts could be also extended and applied to cases of eco-terrorism. For instance, the European Union’s Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism^[90] provides a framework for Member States to criminalize acts of terrorism, including those committed for environmental or animal rights causes. Also, in the United States, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006^[91] was applied in 2019 to sentence Joseph Dibee to six years imprisonment for his involvement in an eco-terrorism group responsible for a series of arson attacks and other acts of vandalism against companies involved in animal testing.^[92]

Alternative and nonviolent measures

While the urgency surrounding the issue of climate change is understandable, resorting to violence and destruction is not a sustainable nor ethical solution. As highlighted in the previous chapter, eco-terrorism only perpetuates fear and division, and ultimately risks weakening the very cause it seeks to promote.

In this chapter, we will explore alternative and nonviolent measures that can be taken to raise awareness on the issue and push governments to address the threats posed by climate change, as well as their effectiveness in raising awareness and pushing governments to mitigate the negative effects of climate change.

Peaceful forms of activism and civil disobedience

There are many nonviolent measures that can be taken to address the dangers of climate change. These measures include advocacy and education, peaceful protests, artistic expressions, legal action, petitions, and boycotts.

Advocacy involves raising awareness about climate change among policymakers and the general public. This can be done through various channels, such as social media, community events and outreach programs, as well as the incorporation of environmental studies into school curriculums.^[93] By educating people about the urgency of the situation, activists hope to encourage them to take action and make informed decisions that benefit the environment, as well as to exercise pressure on the government to enact policies that protect future generations.

A more disruptive – yet still peaceful – measure is that of employing peaceful protests, which may take the form of global strikes, marches, civil disobedience or sit-ins. Protests allow people to voice their concerns, raise awareness, and demand that governments take action to address the issue. An example of a successful protest of this kind is the sc. “Fridays for Future” movement, which has managed to involve millions of people in a series of simultaneous demonstrations across the world.^[94]

Artistic expressions, exhibitions and movies have also been used as tools in raising awareness on issues affecting our planet. These creative mediums have the ability to reach a wide audience and spark conversations that can lead to action. One recent example is the Netflix film Don’t Look Up, which has both garnered widespread attention, praise and viewership for its bold message and star-studded cast and has also inspired climate activists in France to march against climate change.^[95]

A powerful nonviolent measure that has emerged in the fight against climate change is legal action. On one side, this entails the filing of lawsuits against companies engaging in environmentally destructive practices, such as fossil fuel producers, to hold them accountable for their contributions to climate change and demand compensation for the damage caused. On the other side, legal action also entails the challenging of government policies that exacerbate climate change, such as lax environmental regulations or subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which are inconsistent with their obligations to safeguard the health and well-being of their citizens and the planet. The German case Lliuya v. RWE is an example of legal action being used to hold polluters accountable,^[96] while the Urgenda case in the Netherlands employed legal action to push for policy change.^[97]

Lastly, petitions and boycotts are also tools that individuals and organizations can use to advocate for climate action. One successful example is the #StopAdani campaign in Australia, which used petitions and boycotts to pressure banks and insurance companies to withdraw from funding a major coal mine project, making it impossible for Indian multinational conglomerate Adani to secure the necessary financing.^[98] Another example is the Fossil Free campaign, which uses divestment petitions and boycotts to urge universities, foundations, and other institutions to divest from fossil fuel companies and shift towards renewable energy investments.^[99]

Efficacy and limitations of nonviolent approaches

While nonviolent alternatives to eco-terrorism have proven to be effective in some cases, they are not always successful and can require significant time and resources. In the face of a potentially catastrophic environmental situation, time is a critical factor that cannot be overlooked.

Advocacy and education efforts, while effective, are long-term strategies to educate the future generation to the dangers of pollution^[100] and may not be enough to prevent irreversible and imminent damage to ecosystems. Legal action may also take years to produce results, as well as petitions and boycotts, which may not have the desired impact in a timely manner.

Nonviolent methods are undeniably important tools in the fight against environmental destruction. However, urgent situations may call for more immediate and direct action to address the root causes of the problem. One such action, as we discussed earlier, is the employment of violence to force immediate government action, otherwise known as eco-terrorism.

Conclusion

The climate crisis has been a hot topic for many years, and it is becoming increasingly clear that governments are not doing enough to address this urgent issue. As a result, some individuals and groups have turned to eco-terrorism as a way of drawing attention to the problem and forcing action.

The debate over eco-terrorism is complex and multifaceted, with arguments on both sides. On the one hand, those who advocate for such actions argue that they are necessary to draw attention to the severity of the climate crisis and to force governments and corporations to take meaningful action. They point out that traditional methods of activism, such as protests and petitions, have failed to achieve significant results.

On the other hand, opponents of eco-terrorism argue that it is never justifiable to use violence as a means of achieving political goals. They point out that such actions harm innocent people and can escalate into more violent conflicts. Furthermore, they argue that eco-terrorism undermines the legitimacy of the environmental movement and makes it more difficult to achieve meaningful change through non-violent means.

From an ethical standpoint, it is difficult to argue that eco-terrorism is ever justifiable. While the urgency of the climate crisis cannot be denied, resorting to violence should never be seen as an acceptable means of achieving change. Non-violent methods of activism, such as protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience, have a long and successful history of achieving social and political change.

In terms of legality, while it is important to raise awareness about the severity of the climate crisis, this should never be done through illegal means that harm innocent people and damage property.

In conclusion, while the urgency of the climate crisis cannot be denied, eco-terrorism is not a justifiable means of addressing this issue. The harm caused by violence and illegal actions far outweighs any potential benefits in terms of raising awareness and achieving change. It is up to all of us to take action on the climate crisis, but this must be done through legal and ethical means.

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.
No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
- Ban Ki-Moon^[101]