A Clear View 9.1\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nCLEAR View -- Volume\r\n9 Number 1<\/b>\r\n
SPECIAL ALERT -- Post\r\n9\/11 Anti-Environmentalism Threatens Green Activism<\/b>\r\n
January 23, 2002<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/p>
The bulletin of CLEAR, the\r\nanti-environmentalism watchdog.\r\n<\/p>
We encourage you to distribute\r\nthis bulletin. Subscription instructions included below. Permission\r\nis granted to reproduce with attribution any information in this bulletin.\r\n<\/p>
In this Issue:\r\n1. Introduction\r\n
2. Federal \"eco-terror\"\r\nlegislation -- dubious outcome, potential abuse\r\n
3. Using \"eco-terrorism\" to taint the environmental movement\r\n
4. More attacks on 501c3 tax status\r\n
5. Public Interestis \"unpatriotic\"\r\n
6. Appendix: NCPPR's letter to CLEAR<\/b>\r\n\r\n<\/p>
*********
\r\n1. Introduction<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
Wise Use leader Ron Arnold\r\nof the Center for Defense of Free Enterprise once said, \"We want to destroy\r\nenvironmentalists by taking away their money and their members\" (New York\r\nTimes, December 19, 1991). We always regarded this statement as hyperbole,\r\nbut lately we aren't sosure.\r\n<\/p>
Some are using the horrific\r\nterrorist attacks of September 11 to further their own agendas against environmentalism. \r\nThere have been rhetorical attacks branding public interest groups as elitist\r\nAnd unpatriotic, further attacks\r\non non-profit status of a handful of groups, and a renewed intensity infighting \"eco-terrorism,\"\r\na term and concept environmental backlash leaders are trying desperately\r\nto get into circulation.\r\n<\/p>
While most Americans think\r\neco-terrorism consists of arson and other widely condemned extremist activities, some anti-environmentalists\r\ndefine \"eco-terror\" to include civil disobedience actions suchas tree sitting, blocking\r\nroads, targeting corporations with boycotts, and even advocating that theU.S. ratify the Kyoto global\r\nwarming treaty.\r\n<\/p>
Currently, there appear to\r\nbe four major themes coming out of the renewed interest in\"eco-terrorism.\"\r\n1) A renewed effort\r\nto enact vaguely defined federal \"eco-terror\" legislation that could limit\r\nrights to non-violent protests and would not deter violent crime.\r\n<\/p>
2) A nasty public relations\r\nploy attempting to cast ALL environmentalism as \"eco-terrorism\" to varying\r\ndegrees.\r\n<\/p>
3) Unfriendly demands that\r\nlaw-abiding environmental groups provide a position on the criminal activities\r\nof the Earth Liberation Front\r\n\r\n<\/p>
4) Ongoing attacks on the\r\ntax-exempt status of a handful of leading environmental organizations,\r\nsuch at the Rainforest Action Network and the Rukus Society, based on complaints\r\nthat direct action violates their IRS tax status.\r\nRon Arnold gave environmentalists\r\nhis game plan over a decade ago -- to take away our members and our money. A central\r\ntactic for accomplishing these goals has been and remains today to redefine the terms of environmentalism\r\nin favor of \"wise use\" ideals and away from those of true environmental organizations. \r\nBy convincing people that environmentalism is a criminal enterprise, Arnold et al hope to erode\r\nour support, both in financial terms and in the court of public opinion. \r\nBy attacking the tax-exemptions\r\nand reputations of certain groups, this campaign also aims to erode foundation and donor support\r\nfor their efforts. It is not too far-fetched to suppose that individual donors and foundations could\r\nbe the next targets in this campaign -- for sponsoring organizations that some would call \"eco-terrorist.\"\r\n<\/p>
*********\r\n
2. Federal Eco-Terror\r\nLegislation -- dubious outcome, potential abuse<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
After failing to get any\r\nsignificant Federal legislation passed for the past three years, anti-environmental lawmakers\r\nmay be on the verge of turning the acts of peaceful, non-violent protests, such as sitting\r\nin a tree, into felony offenses under Rep. George Nethercutt's proposed \"Agroterrorism Prevention\r\nAct.\" Capitalizing on the public's fear since the horrific terrorist attacks\r\nOf September 11, proponents\r\ncontinue to push legislation that does far more than create increased penalties for fringe individuals\r\nguilty of trespassing and property destruction. Your right to peaceful protest may be yet another\r\ncasualty of the \"war on terrorism\" if an economic loss of more than$10,000 can be claimed as\r\na result of your action.\r\n<\/p>
If this seems far-fetched,\r\n\"wise use\" guru Ron Arnold testified before a congressional committee in1998 on the subject of \"eco-terrorism.\"\r\nHe defined \"eco-terror\" explicitly to include civil disobedience. In his\r\ntestimony, Arnold argued: \"For the past five years, our members have routinely contacted our headquarters\r\nto report crimes committed against them of a type we've come to call eco-terrorism, that is a\r\ncrime committed to save nature. These crimes generally take the form\r\nof equipment vandalism, but\r\nmay include package bombs, blockades using physical force to obstructworkers from going where\r\nthey have a right to go, and invasions of private or government offices\r\nto commit the crime of civil\r\ndisobedience\" (House Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, June 9, 1998).\r\n<\/p>
There is currently a bill\r\nunder consideration (hearings have been postponed until February 2002)introduced by Rep. George\r\nNethercutt (R-WA) that looks suspiciously like what Arnold and others recommended at the 1998\r\neco-terrorism hearings. H.R.2795, \"The Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2001,\" expands the 1992\r\nAnimal Enterprise Protection Act to ostensibly protect biotech, timber, and other agricultural or\r\nbiological products from \"terrorists\" who engage or conspire in activities that include \"physical disruption\"\r\nresulting in \"loss of any property\" (total loss still has to be over$10,000). The\r\nbill contains increased sentencing for all levels of violation and an expanded definition of types of businesses\r\ndefined as \"plant enterprises,\" including stores that sell \"plant products\" (i.e. paper or\r\nwood). Under this extremely broad definition, blocking access to\r\nan office supply store, or \"conspiring\"\r\nto limit profitability of paper products, could be considered \"agro-terrorism\" if the\r\nloss of revenue met the law's threshold. Likewise, putting \"frankenfood\" stickers on GMO products\r\nin grocery stores, if the profit loss could be proven, would be considered a terrorist act.\r\nTree-sitting or road blocking to prevent a timber sale would almost certainly qualify as a disruption\r\nthat would meet the revenue loss threshold.\r\n<\/p>
Nethercutt's bill (see bill\r\nanalysis in separate message) was publicly unveiled at the Frontiers of Freedom \"eco-terrorism\"\r\nconference in June 2001. It is based on a failed bill introduced\r\nin 2001 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). \r\nHatch told attendees at the Frontiers of Freedom conference (which also featured Ron Arnold) that\r\nhis legislation was \"inspired in part by the writings of Ron Arnold.\r\nSo it should come as no surprise\r\nthat we are getting closer to adopting Arnold's definition of eco-terrorism that includes\r\ncivil disobedience and non-violent protest as activities potentially prosecuted as terrorist\r\nacts.\r\n<\/p>
The bill itself, if adopted,\r\nwould probably not pose much of a risk to non-violent activists, but it\r\nis written vaguely enough that\r\nthe potential exists for broad interpretation of its meaning. It\r\nis worth mentioning that only one\r\nperson has been prosecuted under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act since 1992, indicating that\r\nprosecutors do not find it a useful tool. It has also obviously not\r\nhad a deterrent effect on the\r\nactivities of the Animal Liberation Front.\r\n<\/p>
[Ironically, The Heartland\r\nInstitute, a free-market think tank and policy organization with strong anti-environmental credentials,\r\nrecently published an article chiding environmentalists and their supporters in Congress for\r\nrenewing efforts to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles,\r\nin a post-September 11 effort\r\nto address our dependence on foreign oil. Writing for Heartland,\r\nJoseph Bast argues \"The tragedy\r\nof September 11 is being evoked to justify legislation that didn't deserve approval before that date,\r\nand doesn't deserve it now. One such proposal is to impose tougher fuel economy standards on cars\r\nand trucks. Increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, as the enclosed\r\nset of articles proves, is bad public policy.\"(http:\/\/www.free-market.net\/rd\/589424463.html)]\r\n<\/p>
Read the text of the \"Agroterrorism\r\nProtection Act\" HR 2795: http:\/\/www.theorator.com\/bills107\/hr2795.html\r\n<\/p>
\"Animal Enterprise Protection\r\nAct\" USC Title 18 Section 43 http:\/\/www4.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/18\/43.text.html\r\n<\/p>
*********\r\n
3. Using \"eco-terrorism\"\r\nto marginalize the environmental message<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
In June 2001, Senator Orrin\r\nHatch (R-UT) implied that the environmental movement as a whole is responsible for eco-terrorism:\r\n\"It is unfortunate that the general public has not fully caught onto the radicalization of the environmental\r\nmovement. We know instead that their funding has only increased. Over the\r\npast several years, though, we have seen an even more alarming trend.\r\nThe radicalization of the green\r\nmovement has led to a surge in eco-terrorism\" (Frontiers for Freedom event transcript, June 13,\r\n2001).\r\n<\/p>
Unfortunately, Hatch is not\r\nalone in his assessment. Many in the anti-environmental movement\r\ngo even further and routinely\r\ncall ANY environmental activist an \"eco-terrorist,\" arguing on the basis\r\nof guilt-by-association (or\r\nworse, guilt-by-faint-condemnation). The term has been tossed around\r\nforyears in wise use circles,\r\nloosely used to describe virtually any activity (or activist) they don't\r\nagreewith.\r\n<\/p>
For example, the free-market\r\ne-zine Tech Central Station ran an October 3, 2001, headline suggesting environmentalists\r\nin favor of the Kyoto treaty and other environmental policies\/laws\/treaties are\r\n\"eco-terrorists.\" Tech Central Station is a free-market mainstream\r\npublication, not a back water militia web site where conspiracy theories\r\nare frequently the topic du jour. http:\/\/www.techcentralstation.com\/EnviroExtra.asp?id=80\r\n<\/p>
It has been further suggested\r\n-- both before and after 9\/11 -- that mainstream environmental groups either cause, condone, or\r\nare secretly party to \"eco-terror\" attacks. This despite the fact\r\nthat a cursory review of press\r\nclips on the subject in the past few years reveals that most large mainstream environmental groups and\r\nmany grass roots environmental groups have strongly condemned the use of violence for supposed\r\nenvironmental goals. For example, a letter in USA Today in November1998, spearheaded by the\r\nEnvironmental Working Group and the National Environmental Trust and signed by more than a dozen\r\nDC-based environmental organizations, decried the use of violent tactics in the name of the\r\nenvironment in no uncertain terms. Signatories included organizations\r\nsuch as Defenders of Wildlife,\r\nEnvironmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and US Public Interest Research\r\nGroup. The letter read, \"We want to make clear that these arsonists\r\nHave nothing to do with the environmental\r\ncommunity...Extreme, violent acts aren't activism; they are crimes.\"\r\n<\/p>
Since \"USA Today\" is hardly\r\na marginal publication, we at CLEAR wonder how backlash activists who have recently called\r\nupon environmental groups to take a stand against \"eco-terror\" could have missed this one?\r\n<\/p>
As a result either of shoddy\r\nresearch or an intentional (and manipulative) oversight, a round of letters was sent late last year\r\nto large DC-based environmental organizations demanding statements condemning \"eco-terrorism.\"\r\nOne letter came from HR 2795 sponsor Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO),and was signed by colleagues\r\nJim Hansen (R-UT), John Peterson (R-PA), Bob Schaffer (R-CO),Greg Walden (R-OR), J.D.\r\nHayworth (R-OR) and George Nethercutt Jr. (R-WA). A few years behind the curve, the letter\r\ndemanded organizations disavow ELF\/ALF in a written response to his subcommittee by December\r\n1, 2001 (a Sunday, incidentally). The letter specifically mentioned September 11 as a reason\r\nto pursue eco-terrorism: \"In probing the threat of terrorism, it only stands to reason that Congress\r\nshould probe the threat of eco-terrorism as well.\"\r\n<\/p>
Environmentalists have called\r\nthe tactic \"McCarthyesque\" and a \"witch hunt.\" So why is Congress probing peaceful, law abiding\r\nenvironmental organizations? John Passacantando of Greenpeace answered this very question\r\nin a Denver Post interview: \"Because these are the groups that are trying to convince the public that\r\ndrilling in ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] is a bad idea. These are the groups\r\nthat are saying, \"There has never been a better time to conserve and to\r\nreduce the nation's dependence\r\non foreign oil. These congressmen are afraid of our message\" (DenverPost, November 26, 2001).\r\n<\/p>
In a similar (and perhaps\r\nunrelated) effort, a number of environmental organizations (including CLEAR) received a letter\r\nlate last year from Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research demanding to know\r\nour position on the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front (Tom: the short answer\r\nis we cherish American citizens' right to peaceful protest and oppose acts of violence and property\r\ndestruction. Oh, and sorry we missed your deadline). Among\r\nother things, Randall claimed,\r\n\"Nowhere, however, have I seen any denunciation of their acts by 'mainstream' environmental\r\ngroups\" (notice that \"mainstream\" is in quotations, suggesting Mr. Randall doesn't believe in such\r\na thing). CLEAR and other groups were given the deadline of\r\nNovember 15 to respond.\r\n<\/p>
We fear that the results\r\nof NCPPR's \"research\" will be twisted to malign the environmental movement, regardless of\r\nour individual or collective response. Or, in a worse case but not out-of-the-realm-of-the-possible\r\nscenario, the responses (or lack there of) could be used to suggest \"conspiracy\" to commit terrorism\r\nunder the beefed-up anti-terrorism laws that can de-fund and dismantle groups. \r\nWe have nothing to hide and absolutely do not support terrorists, but there\r\nhave been other dark times in\r\nour nation's history when the truth didn't count for much when conspiracy charges were the order of\r\nthe day.\r\n<\/p>
[Ironically, the environmental\r\nbacklash has remained silent on the series of protests in the Klamath Basin in Oregon conducted\r\nby ranchers and anti-environmental activists opposed to irrigation water impoundment resulting from\r\na recent drought, blaming this on environmentalists and the ESA. Protesters have forcibly\r\nbroken into the head gate on several occasions to release water, trespassing and destroying public property\r\nin the process of stealing natural resources. Security at the site\r\nhas been costly as a result\r\nof these criminal acts. The site was recently enclosed with barbed wire-topped security fencing\r\nand surveillance cameras in an effort to protect the facility and reduce costs associated with round-the-clock\r\nguards posted there since last year. These violent criminal acts were perpetrated in\r\nprotest to make a political point, seemingly perfectly adhering to the parameters set out by the\r\nproponents of \"ecoterror\" legislation.]\r\n<\/p>
*********
\r\n4. Attacks on 501c3 Status<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
Reports on the recent attacks\r\non the tax-exempt status of Rainforest Action Network (RAN) have made news in the past several\r\nmonths. This campaign argues that RAN's protest actions are in violation of the IRS's regulations\r\nregarding the educational purpose conveyed through a 501 c3status.\r\n<\/p>
This is just the latest effort\r\nin a long-running campaign to defund RAN. The RANamuck.org website, a project of Ron Arnold's\r\nCenter for Defense of Free Enterprise, has branded RAN as extremists and liars. \r\nAmong other things, the site features a link to send email to the Turner Foundation asking them to\r\nstop funding RAN. Boise Cascade is suspected of supporting theRANamuck .org web site,\r\nand admits writing letters to RAN's funders asking them to end support. Boise Cascade, a primary\r\nRAN target, funded Arnold's Center for Defense of Free Enterprise early in its history (CLEAR\r\ndatabase). CDFE's current funders are unknown.\r\n<\/p>
Apparently neither of these\r\nde-funding tactics has had the desired effect, because Frontiers of Freedom, a group run by\r\nformer Senator Malcolm Wallop, has asked the IRS to revoke RAN's501c3 status. The complaint\r\nargues that because RAN members have been arrested in the course of non-violent protests, the\r\norganization is in violation of its 501c3 status. Boise Cascade denies\r\nbeing behind the attacks or paying\r\nFrontiers of Freedom to lodge the complaint.\r\n<\/p>
At the same June 2001 Frontiers\r\nof Freedom conference on eco-terrorism where Ron Arnold talked about RAN and George\r\nNethercutt (R-WA) publicly unveiled his new \"Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2001,\"\r\nit was repeatedly suggested by participants that \"somebody\" should try\r\nto get RAN's (and other groups\r\nthat engage in direct action) 501c3 tax status revoked. Scarcely\r\na week later, Frontiers of\r\nFreedom announced it was asking the IRS to investigate RAN's tax exempt status. It was also\r\nfalsely stated at the conference that mainstream environmentalists have\r\nfailed to condemn acts of arson and\r\nsimilar committed by ELF, and that \"somebody\" ought to get them totake a position (the full\r\ntext of the proceedings of this conference is well worth reading, and can\r\nbe downloaded in PDF format\r\nfrom http:\/\/www.ff.org\/library\/ecoterrormonograph.html). \r\nScarcely six months later, efforts to\r\ndemonize environmental groups and revoke their tax-exemption were moving forward.\r\n<\/p>
The tactic of attacking non-profit\r\nstatus is catching on. Leaders of the Inupiat Eskimo tribe, one of whom works for the tribe's\r\nArctic Slope Regional Corporation, recently filed a similar complaint against the Alaska Wilderness\r\nLeague, arguing that their activities to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil\r\ndrilling are not \"educational\" and constitute lobbying in violation of\r\ntheir non-profit status (Sacramento\r\nBee, November 11, 2001). http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/content\/news\/environment\/story\/1153075p-1220773c.html\r\n<\/p>
Frontiers of Freedom is now\r\nmaking a similar complaint about the Ruckus Society (read Frontier's view at http:\/\/www.ff.org\/events\/mutants.html). \r\nFrontiers of Freedom does not appear to have taken any action, but claim\r\n\"the crazy thing is not that their tax-exempt status is being challenged,\r\nbut that sometime during the\r\nenvironmental love-in that was 90s, the IRS actually granted this group tax-exempt status in the\r\nfirst place!\" [That wacky, impulsive, Internal Revenue Service! -Ed]\r\n<\/p>
Even if attacks on non-profit\r\nstatus are unsuccessful, they will take time, money, and personal energy to deal with. \r\nExpect to see more of this in the future, even on groups that are well\r\nWithin their legal limit on lobbying\r\nand conform to all legal definitions of \"education.\" Again, we at\r\nCLEAR suspect that such attacks\r\nwill extend beyond environmental groups to their funders in short order. Foundations could\r\nvery well be taken to task for providing support to organizations and campaigns that the backlash has deemed\r\n\"ecoterrorist.\"\r\n<\/p>
*********\r\n
5. Public Interest is\r\n\"unpatriotic\"<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
(Adapted with permission\r\nfrom P.R. Watch's \"Spin of the Day\")\r\n<\/p>
The Washington Legal Foundation,\r\na corporate-funded right wing non-profit legal foundation, has jumped on the bandwagon\r\ncalling public interest activism \"unpatriotic.\" In a biweekly \"In\r\nAll Fairness\" ad in the New\r\nYork Times, WLF's Daniel Popeo condemns \"self-anointed consumer protection groups, working\r\nclosely with profiteering plaintiff lawyers,\" \"Naderite food police,\" and\"no-growth activists,\" saying\r\nthat \"in the post-September 11 world we can no longer afford to put the narrow agendas of a\r\n'public interest' elite ahead of our own national interests.\" Look\r\nfor this rhetorical attack to heighten\r\nin the months ahead as corporate front groups exploit tragedy and war for political gain. \r\nRead the ad: http:\/\/www.wlf.org\/Communicating\/\r\n<\/p>
*********\r\n
6. NCPPR's letter to\r\nCLEAR<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
Tom Randall and the National\r\nCenter for Public Policy Research have posted letters to many leading environmental organizations\r\ndemanding their position on \"ecoterror.\" Below is the text of the letter we received from\r\nNCPPR.\r\n<\/p>
\"At a time of unprecedented\r\nterrorist attacks in America and concern regarding future attacks, one type of terrorist continues\r\nto operate unfettered, even uncriticized: ecoterrorists.\r\n<\/p>
\"The Earth Liberation Front\r\nand the Animal Liberation Front continue to take credit for numerous acts of terrorism, including\r\narson, in the name of environmentalism. They even incite others to terrorism. All of\r\nthis can be seen on their web site, http:\/\/www.earthliberationfront.com. \r\nSince they have been operating in the\r\nname of the environmental movement since 1996, I assume you are familiar with them.\r\n<\/p>
\"Nowhere, however, have I\r\nseen any denunciation of their acts by \"mainstream\" environmental groups. At this time\r\nof unprecedented concern, we would appreciate it if you would advise\r\nus of your position relative to\r\nthe activities of the Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front\r\nand other ecoterrorist organizations. \r\nIn the interests of completing our research in a timely manner, we ask that you reply to us\r\nby November 15, 2001.\r\n<\/p>
\"Thank you for your prompt\r\nconsideration of this matter.\r\n<\/p>
\"Yours truly,\" Tom Randall, Director John P. McGovern Center\r\nfor Environmental and Regulatory Affairs National Center for Public\r\nPolicy Research\"\r\n<\/p>
A cursory check of www.nationalcenter.org\r\nindicates that the results of Randall's research have not yet been made public.\r\n<\/p>
****** 30 ******\r\n<\/p>
TO SUBSCRIBE\r\n<\/p>
To subscribe to the CLEAR_View\r\nread only list, send an email message to:\r\n<\/p>
list_requests@c-t-g.com\r\n<\/p>
In the body of the message,\r\ntype \"subscribe CLEAR_View.\" The subject line can be blank.\r\n<\/p>
If you have already subscribed\r\nto CLEAR_View, you do not need to re-subscribe.\r\n<\/p>
Please forward this bulletin\r\nand encourage others to subscribe.\r\n<\/p>
ABOUT CLEAR<\/b>\r\n<\/p>
CLEAR provides grassroots\r\nand national environmental advocates and organizations with information about the vital\r\nimportance of fair and effective environmental policies in protecting human health, natural resources,\r\ncommunities and private property. Through publications, research, and facts, CLEAR helps concerned\r\ncitizens understand and counter misinformation about environmental policy and science and the\r\nimpacts of environmental law on the economy and private property.\r\n<\/p>
Publisher: Dan Barry (daniel.barry@mindspring.com)
\r\nEditor: Emily Headen (eheaden@earthlink.net)\r\n<\/p>
SUPPORT CLEAR\r\n<\/p>
CLEAR is a project of the\r\nTides Center. Your tax-deductible donations to help keep CLEAR on the track of the backlash\r\ncan be mailed to CLEAR, 2100 L Street NW Suite 210, Washington, DC, 20037. Checks\r\nshould be made out to \"The Tides Center -- CLEAR.\" THANK YOU!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"CLEAR helps activists and concerned citizens understand and counter misinformation about environmental policy and science and the impacts of environmental law on the economy and private property. This alert identifies some of the major attacks on the environmental movement post 9-11, most of which revolve around exploiting the \"terrorism\" label, exactly as McCarthyism exploited the \"communism\"\r\nlabel.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/01\/clearw2twwy.htm","filesize":"31.1 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/01\/14349.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}