By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
On Tuesday, environmentalist demonstrators broke through
a Michigan fence housing the Canadian oil-transportation firm Enbridge’s Line 5
pipeline in the effort to sabotage it. The demonstrators closed an
emergency shutoff valve, temporarily halting the transportation of natural gas
and other fluids to Michigan and beyond.
These demonstrators were not shadowy subversives. They
filmed their actions and posted the video to social media. They contacted
Enbridge before their actions “out of an abundance of caution.” They claimed
they were acting “in accordance with” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s order to
shut down the pipeline—an action the Canadian government claims violates international treaty and is presently before
the courts. What’s more, they adopted the fashionable language of victimization
favored by social-justice activists. “I know my life is in danger from the risk
of a spill and from the contributions to climate change,” wrote one of the
activists with the group that released the footage of this vandalism. You see,
the exploitation of natural resources is a direct threat to life and liberty.
As the prolific eco-terrorist, Jessica Reznicek, told DemocracyNow! in 2017, the extraction of oil from the
earth “is violent.” Therefore, a preemptive strike against those who engage in
this practice is only self-defense.
This signals a change in the rules of engagement around
acts of property destruction and vandalism in the name of environmental
activism. In an earlier age, civil disobedience, sabotage, and even violent
acts of ecological terrorism were exclusive to activists with an unbridled
contempt for authority—commercial, political, or otherwise. By contrast, these
activists are appealing to authority. They believe themselves to be the
instruments of legitimate political power, which is unduly constrained by
conventions like the law. They are appealing to the linguistic trappings of a
faddish movement not only to justify their actions but to benefit from the
sympathy such displays generate among elite opinionmakers. And the tactic is
working.
In September, two women were convicted of the November
2020 sabotage of railroad tracks near the U.S.-Canada border in Washington
state just before a train carrying crude oil was set to cross. The pair set out
to place a shunt—a wire that mimics train signals and can disable crossings or
cause trains to automatically break—across the track with the aim of halting
the train. Indeed, this was one of dozens of shunting incidents that occurred in 2020
alone and the FBI is investigating it and other cases like it. This episode was
particularly disastrous. Two tanker cars decoupled, drifted apart, and caused a
crash that derailed ten train cars, three of which burst into flames. The act
of sabotage was followed just weeks later by an even more nightmarish attack.
In what federal authorities deemed a terrorist event, another crude-oil train was derailed when
saboteurs disabled an air-brake system while it was stationary and unattended.
Five cars exploded, 29,000 gallons of oil spilled into the surrounding
environs, and 120 people were evacuated.
According to some activists, these attacks are a welcome
show of support for indigenous communities that oppose the development and
transport of natural resources like fossil fuels. “To see that supporters of
Wet’suwet’en sovereignty are facing up to 20 years in prison tells me that the
state is very fearful of Indigenous resistance and those who support Indigenous
resistance,” wrote Molly Wickham, a spokesperson for an anti-pipeline group.
This is precisely the sort of thing that is being
legitimized in mainstream leftwing venues by the likes of author Andreas Malm.
His book, How to Blow Up a Pipeline, provides the intellectual
justification for aspiring environmental saboteurs. “Here is what the movement
of millions should do,” Malm wrote. “Damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices.
Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow
them up. Let the capitalists who keep on investing in the fire know that their
properties will be trashed.”
This inciting tract has enjoyed ambivalent-to-favorable
treatments in the New York Times, the New Yorker, and Vox. Malm’s “intelligent sabotage” advocacy prompted a bout
of chin-stroking by the hosts of the New Yorker’s podcast. At most, pseudo-intellectual frameworks justifying
violence in the name of conservationism are gently criticized not for their
objective immorality but for the counterproductive political consequences that
could tarnish the public perception of environmentalist activism. “Plenty of
readers will react (as I did) with a sort of instinctive skepticism to Malm’s
case that only widespread property destruction can forestall civilizational
suicide,” The New Republic’s Benjamin Kunkel conceded, “but his case deserves a
hearing.”
And it has been heard—loud and clear, apparently, by the
zealots for whom violence is just another tool in the activist’s toolshed. The
degree to which the anarchically inclined are mimicking the linguistic tics and
mental gestures of the environmentalist intelligentsia is a new feature of the
eco-terrorist movement. That flattery appears to be working on its intended
targets. We’re sure to see more violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment