Final Final Draft

The issue regarding the justification of vandalism for an individual or environmental organization really becomes a question of whether or not the end justifies the means. At the end of the day, can any of us look ourselves in the mirror and, without hesitation, feel that our actions were justified and in line with our values. If the vandalism evolved to the level of bombings, the loss of life or extensive property damage can we still look ourselves in the eye and feel comfortable with our actions. Real character and integrity is not what we appear to be to the outside world; integrity is the way that we act when no one is watching.
Vandalism can justified to protest issues hurting the environment only when we do not cross the internal line that defines who we are and how we want to interact with people and the world as a whole. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue legally and economically and try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. All other options should be tried before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails a certain amount of vandalism is justified to make a statement. The line is crossed however when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested. The use of vandalism must not cross the line into eco-terrorism which “The FBI defines as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." (James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI; Feb. 12, 2002. http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007)
First, the protesters need to attempt to solve the environmental issue through the legal system. By using the judicial system protesters can clearly communicate their objections without the risk of getting in trouble for vandalism. If the protesters can get their point proven in court, they have an almost guaranteed win. For example, if protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment, and sent the samples to a lab, the lab could then write a legal report documenting the pollution. The protesters could bring the evidence to court and ask for a temporary halt on the company’s operations (a cease and desist order), until the contamination problem is removed. A recent example of the use of the legal system that gained international acceptance and approval is the Kyoto Protocol. “On the Kyoto Protocol, I think Russia's ratification means and the agreement's entry into force mean that the regime is more likely to gain strength. I believe that there is much good that may come from the Russian ratification. It will put allow many countries to make changes that they might have been "scared" to make otherwise. Also, I think it will create normative pressure (that is, "moral" or social pressure) on countries like the USA that do not ratify” (Chat Session with Prof. Ron Mitchell, March 16, 2005. http://idl.stanford.edu/news/chatMitchell-March16.html April 19, 2007) The Kyoto Protocol demonstrates how the legal system can be used to the advantage of the environmental movement.
Secondly protestors can look to economic strategies to damage a company or individuals that they believe are damaging the environment. Economic sanctions can have an immediate detrimental effect on an entity. For example, a boycott of a company’s products until they responded in a way that was satisfactory to the protestors, is a way to effect change without using vandalism. Boycotting an oil company that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction. "Most people think that you've got to reduce sales a lot, but if you reduce any company's sales from between two to five per cent you've won. Having said that, it is very hard to reduce a company's sales by five per cent because it takes a massive degree of organization.” (Ralph Nader, Co-op America, 1989, http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.htm April 19, 2007).

Threatening legal action through the media can also be another economic strategy. If the entity that is damaging the environment is a public company (its stock is bought and sold publicly), then any negative press can affect the price of their stock. Simply threatening a major legal action could cause investors and stockholders to fear the cost of a lawsuit. As a result, stockholders may try to sell the company’s stock and drive the stock price down. Typically, corporate executives are compensated with stock and/or stock options and they have an interest in keeping the stock price high. The company may stop the action that is compromising the environment in order to maintain an image that will help ensure the value of their stock. “The World Resources Institute warned that future actions to curb global warming and limit drilling for oil and gas in environmentally sensitive areas could cause investments in energy companies to drop. "Investors ignore environmental issues at their own peril," said Duncan Austin, WRI economist and co-author of the report. "Environmental issues can have a significant impact on a company's bottom line and stock price." (Green Issues could Hurt energy Stocks, Reuters, July 25, 2005, Tom Doggett, http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17005/story.htm April 19, 2007). Clearly investors are sensitive to the financial impact that environmental issues can have to a company’s value.
A third option would be to come up with an agreement whereby the environmental issue is resolved and the company benefits as well. Recent examples of a mutually beneficial solution would include large storage dumps of used tires. “Waste tires have been a major management and disposal problem for decades. Recapping of passenger vehicle tires, once a viable business utilizing millions of tires, has all but ceased. In the past some property owners have dumped, or have allowed others to dump, tires on their property, awaiting the day when tires would be valuable for their petroleum content.” (Waste Tire Management, Alan Lassister, Virginia Department of Environment Quality, http://www.deq.state.va.us/wastetires/ April 19, 2007). Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soil. The used tires can be purchased and hauled away by other firms that can recycle the rubber into other products (such as running track surfaces). The company that owns the dump is relieved of the problem of storing the tires and is paid by the removal company. The removal company only does this if they have a use for the tires that is economically viable for them. Solutions whereby everyone benefits and the environmental issue is resolved are great for all parties. Sometimes it requires a great deal of thought to find these “win/win” solutions but it is worth the effort.
Over the course of history, significant change has sometimes required revolution or revolt. Vandalism can be viewed as a type of revolt against a force that will not otherwise change. The only type of vandalism that I feel is acceptable is vandalism that does not involve violence or bring physical harm to any individual. The type of vandalism that I am referring to is a type which usually results in a negative financial impact to the company or entity. Vandalism that involves bombings, fires, or other forms of destruction are not acceptable, as the risk to human life is too great and it crosses the ethical and moral line for me. The example of vandalism in the book “Hoot” whereby the “Running Boy” removes stakes from a construction site to slow down development, is the type of vandalism that I find acceptable. The vandalism is not exactly passive in that some action is taken but the action is not violent and does not physically harm anyone. “Thus the acts of Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and other extremist nature-saving networks, are clearly terrorism and eco-terrorism under the law. Contrary to claims of their partisans that they are not terrorists because they have not killed or injured any living being (and thus their acts are mere vandalism and not terrorism), the murder of Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn by an animal rights extremist, and their use of arson and pipe bombs, contradicts claims of innocence, and their intent is to influence policy by intimidation and coercion.” (http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007). Actions such as murder and bombings go beyond vandalism and are not acceptable solutions.
If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted, then vandalism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism as a solution to an environmental issue is a gray area, as you are no longer guided by laws or the legal system. By resorting to vandalism you have gone outside of what is legally correct and you are relying on your own sense of justice and ethics to guide your actions. “Environmentalists have protested by acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins and chaining themselves to trees; others have upped the ante by using violence and massive destruction to convey their messages and beliefs.” (Eco-terrorism, A New Kind of Sabotage by Cheryl Runyon, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/freedom/ecoterrorism.htm April 19, 2007) Protestors must be careful not to cross the line from vandalism to eco-terrorism even in the most egregious situations as they jeopardize their sense of values in the name of a cause.