The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd Edition

Environmental groups

6.5 The repertoire of environmental protest

Environmental protests can involve a wide

range of unconventional and indirect actions to

influence policymakers:

1. Thelogic of numbers:to demonstrate the
   sheer size of support to the government and
   the wider public – around 20 million
   Americans celebrated the first Earth Day in
   1970, a critical event in persuading policy
   elites that the public wanted legislation to
   protect the environment.


2. Thelogic of damage:to inflict material
   losses on business or government.
   Includes:
   (i)economic sanctions – the
   Greenpeace-orchestrated consumer
   boycott of Shell petrol stations during
   the Brent Spar campaign (Box6.3);
   (ii) economic disruption – the anti-roads
   protests hoped the huge security costs
   of policing road-building sites would
   dissuade construction companies and

the government from future develop-

ments;

(iii)violence against property – Earth First!

‘ecotage’; computer-hacking offers a

new means of inflicting huge material

damage on corporations and

government.

3. Thelogic of bearing witness:to
   ‘demonstrate a strong commitment to an
   objective deemed vital for humanity’s future’
   (della Porta and Diani 2006 : 176). It
   reinforces the moral message by showing
   that activists are willing to take personal
   risks because of the strength of their
   convictions:
   
   in 1995 Greenpeace vessels sailed into
   the exclusion zone around Mururoa in the
   Pacific where the French were about to
   carry out nuclear tests.
   
   ecological activists take up residence in
   treehouses or a maze of tunnels.

Source: della Porta and Diani ( 2006 : 170–8).

(see Box6.5). The typology (Table6.3)reveals a dynamic movement in which
the convergence amongst the major environmental groups in most coun-
tries towards the institutionalised ‘public interest’ model should, in many
countries, be set against a thriving grassroots sector made up of both ‘partic-
ipatory pressure’ groups of local citizens opposing specific LULUs and ‘par-
ticipatory protest’ ecological social movements. Yet, contrary to the doubts
of Bosso ( 1999 ), there does seem to be sufficient common ground to talk
in terms of one broad environmental movement. Apart from the obvious
points of similarity, such as a shared concern about environmental destruc-
tion, two particular manifestations of this unity are significant.
First, there seems to be a creative tension between the different wings
of the movement. Certainly, the vitality of the grassroots sector is partly
aresultofthewidespread negative perceptions of the mainstream move-
ment amongst concerned citizens, with many grassroots groups springing
directly from a deep-seated frustration at the perceived impotence of the
environmental lobby, notably for their neglect of local campaigning. For
their part, established groups, particularly those with radical roots, have
tried to respond to the challenge from below. FoE (UK), for example, stung by
criticisms that it has neglected its participatory principles, has used regional