Military strategists are always fighting the last war, and the same applies to those fighting radicalisation. In 2001, Western intelligence services, which had primarily focused on domestic terrorist groups such as the Irish Republican Army and ETA, were blindsided by Al Qaeda. Then came 2011, and they were unpleasantly surprised by Anders Behring Breivik and the spread of far-right extremism. By around 2010, Islamic terrorists had evolved into the Islamic State — another development noticed only in retrospect.
Today we are on the verge of making the same mistake again. We will not be able to forgive ourselves if our attention is fixed solely on the Islamic State or far-right radicals, because we are about to be hit by a wave of environmental radicalisation.
Radical environmentalism is nothing new. In 2001, the FBI described the Earth Liberation Front — a militant, violent environmental protection group — as one of the most significant domestic terrorism threats. Academics estimate that ⟦REAR⟧ (Radical Environmentalist and Animal Rights) cells operate in at least 25 countries. In the US alone, between 1970 and 2007, they carried out more than 1,000 criminal acts, mostly acts of vandalism and attacks on facilities where animal testing is conducted. Over the last 30 years, there have been periodic concerns about new waves of 'eco-terrorism', though these have not truly materialised.
Until recently, radical environmentalism has been a victim of its own success. Green ideas had already gained broad popularity some years ago. Most major political parties in Western democracies (despite Donald Trump and the Republican Party) now accept the facts of climate change and pledge to respond to them. Environmentalism has become part of a wider anti-capitalist movement, which is largely characterised by both a desire to renounce the use of force and a desire for change. Consequently, climate activist actions, which transform from peaceful protests, such as protest marches, into civil disobedience by closing mines or damaging equipment, still involve very few people. There is no precise data, but those in the know suggest that only a few hundred hardened activists are active in Great Britain, and a few thousand in the US.
There are indications that the situation may change. The conditions for the radicalisation of climate activists exist. There are signs that in some groups these processes are already underway. When that happens, we may well be unprepared for the actions of those who follow a hard-line green agenda.
All types of radicals share common features. Peter Neumann, director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) and author of the book ⟦“Der Terror ist unter uns”⟧ (“Terrorism is among us”), argues that people who radicalise typically experience a sense of grievance — sometimes real, sometimes imagined — and they believe that legitimate channels for redress are closed, inaccessible or ineffective. Usually, there is also a social element involved in the form of a charismatic preacher or an ideology that encourages people to seek emotional fulfilment through compensatory methods that are considered forbidden.
Climate activists definitely have a catastrophic, existential grievance that is based on scientific research.
Current forecasts predict that by the end of this century, large areas of the globe will become uninhabitable; extreme weather, food shortages and drought will have become the norm. It is possible that by 2050, as many as 250 million people will have become refugees due to climate change. This is a source of many grievances, a situation that is, unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating.
Formal, peaceful political activity, which is an important path for making improvements, is not working. True, there have been successes. The renewable energy sector is flourishing. Anti-capitalist and environmental political movements are becoming more widespread (for example, Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Beppe Grillo, who have made climate change a key priority). However, from the perspective of environmental activists, there is even more reason to doubt the prospects of politically saving the planet. In 2040, the amount of energy required to meet global needs will be approximately 50% higher than in 2012. It is forecast that during this time, the demand for coal will grow by 0.6% annually. Last year was particularly unfavourable in this regard. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to more than 400 parts per million (for the first time in millions of years), while the Living Planet Index predicted that two-thirds of wildlife could disappear by 2020. No serious activist believes that the Paris Agreement on climate change, accepted by national governments, will be enough — that was the case even before Donald Trump's withdrawal from the agreement.
Signs of the radicalisation of 'green circles' are already noticeable if we know where to look. While writing my book ⟦“Radicals Chasing Utopia”⟧, I conducted research and spent time with the hard-line environmentalist group Earth First!; it was founded in the American Southwest, but its cells operate all over the world. It is experiencing a revival because it promises to 'make no compromises in defence of Mother Earth'. The group’s most experienced members said they had never seen such a high level of interest and frustration. During the time I spent in the group, I realised that alongside the hardened veterans, Earth First! has attracted many young people who have joined the movement for the first time and feel that 'something must be done, and it must be done quickly'.
By looking at environmentalist websites or blogs, you will learn about protests, demonstrations, marches and planned acts of civil disobedience. There is a stirring happening. I recently spoke with a representative from the environmental group Friends of the Earth, which has branches all over the world. He said that local groups protesting against the use of hydraulic fracturing technology have grown in number faster than anything previously experienced in the green movement. If the Islamic terrorist attacks, which led to the introduction of a state of emergency, had not occurred a few weeks before the climate change conference in Paris in November 2015, the demonstrations planned during the conference would likely have been the largest environmental protest actions of all time. I interviewed several of those involved at the time. Months were devoted to planning the protests, hundreds of organisers were moving through the city, and the energy in the air was palpable. That same year, German climate change activists founded Ende Gelände (“Here and no further”) — an association aimed at civil disobedience against fossil fuels. In 2015, about 1,500 of these highly determined and well-organised protesters entered one of Europe's largest coal mines, succeeding in temporarily shutting it down. Last year, twice as many protesters did the same. This month, Ende Gelände organised an 11-day campaign during which about 6,000 protesters tried to halt production in Germany's coal-mining region.
The same stubborn determination was observed in the Standing Rock protesters who tried to prevent the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in the northern US. Between August 2016 and February 2017, 761 people were arrested. Of course, this partly speaks to the harsh reaction of the police, yet it is a signal of the protesters' persistence and refusal to back down. The authorities are not hiding their concern. A recent US Department of Homeland Security report included a warning about eco-terrorist attacks by those who 'believe that violence is justifiable', given the planned Diamond pipeline which will stretch from Oklahoma to Tennessee (although the report noted that there was no current information regarding planned attacks).