First draft

I think that the vandalism is justified to a certain point as a way to protest issues hurting the environment. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue legally, economically and try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. They need to exhaust all other options before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails vandalism is justified up to a point. This point is crossed when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested.

First, the protester needs to go at the issue legally. Using the Judicial system protesters can get the message sent clearly and strictly 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, it protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment and sent the samples to a lab; the lab could 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 (cease and desist), until they fixed the pollution problem.

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 companies 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’s products that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction.

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. 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.

A third option would be to come up with an option for the company or individuals 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. Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soils. 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 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.

If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted then vandalism or eco-terrorism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism or eco-terrorism 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.