Activism

Protest action such as demonstrations, blockades, pickets, protest marches and meetings are the traditional method for groups of people to get their message across to the wider public. It is used as "a method for involving people in a meaningful experience in challenging unjust laws or actions; a way of demonstrating to others the depth of commitment felt by a group about an issue; a means to obtain publicity and apply pressure on politicians."

Greenpeace use actions or stunts such as blocking pipes as a means of gaining publicity. Such actions tend to be symbolic and theatrical, aiming at the television cameras rather than any real disruption. The aim is to raise public awareness about a particular environmental issue by focussing on the worst examples of it. Because of the nature of the media, it does little more than this. The details and information that accompany the reporting of such an action tend to be simplified and scarce. The message that television viewers get is something like "this company is polluting the environment illegally and the government is doing nothing about it." It doesn't require any depth of understanding of issues to perform an action or to get the message from the television set but it is highly effective at drawing attention to an environmental problem and promoting public discussion of it.

In its extreme form activism includes the destruction or disabling of machinery and property. Such actions are generally condemned by mainstream environmental groups but are used by groups such as Earth First! in the United States to hinder and disrupt environmentally destructive activities. Christopher Manes, a member of that group, believes "property damage in defence of the environment is a justifiable, even potentially heroic action." He argues such actions follow from a deep ecologist viewpoint.

If our selves belong to a larger self that encompasses the whole biological community in which we dwell, then an attack on the trees, the wolves, the rivers, is an attack upon all of us. Defense of place becomes a form of self-defense, which in most ethical and legal systems would be ample grounds for spiking a tree or ruining a tire.

For most environmental groups non-violent civil disobedience is preferred. Brian Martin points out that the blockades in Tasmania were mainly used to gain publicity and apply pressure on national politicians as well as a "grassroots" approach aimed at mobilizing `ordinary people' to promote social change by changing their behavior. Similarly Greenpeace actions such as pipe blocking have been viewed as being aimed at raising funds rather than changing behaviors.

Nevertheless, even activists of the lightest green complexion are by their actions being confrontational and for a person or group to choose such a PR-strategy, it generally demonstrates a lack of faith in the society's decision-making structures and/or a lack of access to formal communication channels with decision-makers. Protest action is the resort of the weak and for that very reason. It is the action of those outside of the power structure and as such protestors are unable to influence the way governments will respond to the pressures that they help to heap on them. Negotiation

It is the feeling of powerlessness that has led to growing tensions in the environment movement. For some the route to power and funds is through compromise and negotiation. The willingness to make deals and accept trade-offs, and to tone down on the confrontation, allows entry into the decision-making process. For Linda Siddall, Director of Friends of the Earth, Hong Kong the route is through corporate sponsorship;

In Hong Kong we take the view that, while confrontation may have been the only posture available to environmentalists in the 1970s, times are changing and so too are industrial attitudes. We have therefore sought to establish a relationship with industry which is suited to the present. In practical terms, this has meant we do not accept sponsorship from companies which we should like to see go out of existence completely, such as fur and tobacco. But for the rest, we try to establish a working relationship so as to better understand their point of view, and hopefully influence them to better understand and adopt ours. Accepting sponsorship is one tool in this PR-strategy. We need to harness the organizational and financial resources of industry on our side.

For others the route to power is through involvement with government. For example, Aynsley Kellow argues that for the environmentalists to be incorporated into the policy process they must be willing to compromise and have faith that institutional reforms are both desirable and possible; "Unless the environmental movement in Australia can achieve this political maturity, it will remain tangential to the processes of social change in Australia..."

Those on the light green end of the spectrum, are more likely to advocate getting involved with the existing power structure in order to bring about reforms and influence decisions. They view the current social system in Australia as satisfactory provided the government and industry can be persuaded to change some of their practices. However, for many dark green environmentalists the existing power structure is itself the problem and they cannot see environmental problems being solved whilst that system remains in place. To endorse corporations or products made by corporations whose first priority is profit and who use their power to ensure that environmental reforms do not inhibit their ability to make profits is alien to them. To endorse political parties whose first priority is economic growth is similarly seen by them to be shortsighted pragmatism.

Activist Ally Fricker has criticized the ACF and TWS for their willingness to work within the system in this way:

This conservation grouping is dedicated to the system, as we know it, but desires minor modifications and reforms. They promote a world of nice, sensitive developments: well managed and striking a perfect balance between greed and need. They are dedicated to going `hand and hand' with developers but not into the wilderness... they criticize economic growth but bend over backward not to be categorized as anti-development.

The tensions within environmental groups arise because the two modes of operation, activism and negotiation are increasingly incompatible.

Leaders of environmental groups who are attempting to form links and alliances with the power structure will be wary of those in the group who undermine the group's "respectability" with activism that challenges and confronts that power structure.

Protest action such as demonstrations, blockades, pickets, protest marches and meetings are the traditional method for groups of people to get their message across to the wider public. It is used as "a method for involving people in a meaningful experience in challenging unjust laws or actions; a way of demonstrating to others the depth of commitment felt by a group about an issue; a means to obtain publicity and apply pressure on politicians."

Greenpeace use actions or stunts such as blocking pipes as a means of gaining publicity. Such actions tend to be symbolic and theatrical, aiming at the television cameras rather than any real disruption. The aim is to raise public awareness about a particular environmental issue by focussing on the worst examples of it. Because of the nature of the media, it does little more than this. The details and information that accompany the reporting of such an action tend to be simplified and scarce. The message that television viewers get is something like "this company is polluting the environment illegally and the government is doing nothing about it." It doesn't require any depth of understanding of issues to perform an action or to get the message from the television set but it is highly effective at drawing attention to an environmental problem and promoting public discussion of it.

In its extreme form activism includes the destruction or disabling of machinery and property. Such actions are generally condemned by mainstream environmental groups but are used by groups such as Earth First! in the United States to hinder and disrupt environmentally destructive activities. Christopher Manes, a member of that group, believes "property damage in defence of the environment is a justifiable, even potentially heroic action." He argues such actions follow from a deep ecologist viewpoint.

If our selves belong to a larger self that encompasses the whole biological community in which we dwell, then an attack on the trees, the wolves, the rivers, is an attack upon all of us. Defense of place becomes a form of self-defense, which in most ethical and legal systems would be ample grounds for spiking a tree or ruining a tire.

For most environmental groups non-violent civil disobedience is preferred. Brian Martin points out that the blockades in Tasmania were mainly used to gain publicity and apply pressure on national politicians as well as a "grassroots" approach aimed at mobilizing `ordinary people' to promote social change by changing their behavior. Similarly Greenpeace actions such as pipe blocking have been viewed as being aimed at raising funds rather than changing behaviors.

Nevertheless, even activists of the lightest green complexion are by their actions being confrontational and for a person or group to choose such a PR-strategy, it generally demonstrates a lack of faith in the society's decision-making structures and/or a lack of access to formal communication channels with decision-makers. Protest action is the resort of the weak and for that very reason. It is the action of those outside of the power structure and as such protestors are unable to influence the way governments will respond to the pressures that they help to heap on them. Negotiation

It is the feeling of powerlessness that has led to growing tensions in the environment movement. For some the route to power and funds is through compromise and negotiation. The willingness to make deals and accept trade-offs, and to tone down on the confrontation, allows entry into the decision-making process. For Linda Siddall, Director of Friends of the Earth, Hong Kong the route is through corporate sponsorship;

In Hong Kong we take the view that, while confrontation may have been the only posture available to environmentalists in the 1970s, times are changing and so too are industrial attitudes. We have therefore sought to establish a relationship with industry which is suited to the present. In practical terms, this has meant we do not accept sponsorship from companies which we should like to see go out of existence completely, such as fur and tobacco. But for the rest, we try to establish a working relationship so as to better understand their point of view, and hopefully influence them to better understand and adopt ours. Accepting sponsorship is one tool in this PR-strategy. We need to harness the organizational and financial resources of industry on our side.

For others the route to power is through involvement with government. For example, Aynsley Kellow argues that for the environmentalists to be incorporated into the policy process they must be willing to compromise and have faith that institutional reforms are both desirable and possible; "Unless the environmental movement in Australia can achieve this political maturity, it will remain tangential to the processes of social change in Australia..."

Those on the light green end of the spectrum, are more likely to advocate getting involved with the existing power structure in order to bring about reforms and influence decisions. They view the current social system in Australia as satisfactory provided the government and industry can be persuaded to change some of their practices. However, for many dark green environmentalists the existing power structure is itself the problem and they cannot see environmental problems being solved whilst that system remains in place. To endorse corporations or products made by corporations whose first priority is profit and who use their power to ensure that environmental reforms do not inhibit their ability to make profits is alien to them. To endorse political parties whose first priority is economic growth is similarly seen by them to be shortsighted pragmatism.

Activist Ally Fricker has criticized the ACF and TWS for their willingness to work within the system in this way:

This conservation grouping is dedicated to the system, as we know it, but desires minor modifications and reforms. They promote a world of nice, sensitive developments: well managed and striking a perfect balance between greed and need. They are dedicated to going `hand and hand' with developers but not into the wilderness... they criticize economic growth but bend over backward not to be categorized as anti-development.

The tensions within environmental groups arise because the two modes of operation, activism and negotiation are increasingly incompatible.

Leaders of environmental groups who are attempting to form links and alliances with the power structure will be wary of those in the group who undermine the group's "respectability" with activism that challenges and confronts that power structure.