Environmental Activism

There is a very interesting connotation behind environmental activism. The world sees the green-loving, peaceful environmentalist who want the best from the people who roam this planet, yet somehow, environmental passion is connected to activism and violence.Why do environmental activists turn to crazy media stunts and violence? As seen with the Whale Hunters, some environmentalists will do whatever is takes to get the attention they believe their cause deserves. I believe that so much of this comes down to having a political voice. Environmental concerns are not going to surpass public concerns for taxes, jobs, and the economy very often. Environmentalist must feel as though they have no political representation that is willing, or able, to take action. So when normative politics don't work, activists turn to challenging the government to instead create policy retroactively.

However, there are positives. Activism can translate quite easily into international non-governmental organizations that take diplomatic and acceptable approaches to policy change, international negotiation, and even protesting without cause another form of damage. Wagner states that these transnational groups are able to shape policy through societies- non-state actors that have the capability to work off passion, not money or pride. I do agree with Wagner that these transnational groups are in a way "political actors in their own right." However, like governments as well, that comes with a spectrum. There are violent environmental groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front, and there are peaceful environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, just in the same way that there are legitimate governments and tyrannical regimes.

On the other hand, I question what has been more effective: non-governmental organizations and activists, or government-sponsored treaties. As per usual, government is going to move slow: it's bureaucratic. However, the power advantage is unsurpassed. Take the Montreal Treaty for example. To solve an international problem, you need international organization. Governments (who have power, control, and money) are more likely to consider agreements and proposals from other legitimate governments for the purposes of diplomatic relations. However, the topic must be highly focused in order for there to be action, hence why the Montreal Treaty worked to combat the depleting ozone layer. This is where those activist groups come in: they are focused. They pick a cause and are able to put 100% of their effort around that cause. Without that support and focus, international governments end up with a situation like the Kyoto Protocol. However, Wagner states that there is a connection between non-governmental organization power and success to their significance to state power. State approved groups create policy, making the world very difficult for those protesting against the state.

The focus of activist groups can help pass normative policy, however, I wonder how goals change for the groups that turn violent. I believe that governments act in response to legitimacy. So the Earth Liberation Front lost all of it's legitimacy when they turned from tree-sits to burning down wood plants. If you want to change policy, you have to play the games of the policy makers. This isn't the mindset I want to have, but sometimes it's a harsh reality. I absolutely support the groups who don't confirm to government standards- that's how change is made, usually for the better. But when it crosses a line, there's no turning back and unless you have a full revolution, those in power will squash the activists' dreams. With less than 15 people in the Earth Liberation Front, chances were that they would not change the  views of 300 million Americans. They thought that by turning to violence and media stunts they could, but that is too many people to convince who only care about a news story for 6 days. However, for those 6 days, these groups get the all the attention they want and desire, so the violence is worth it. There can be the decision to work all your life to maybe get a minute on the Hill with a Congressman, or, while even just for 6 days, get international attention to grow your cause, even without government legitimacy to back you up. Which is better, I don't know. I love active change, but not at the cost to someone else who may not totally be in the wrong. Which is again, highly subjective, as is much of environmental politics, and hence why policy around it is so challenging.