By Steven Best, PhD
At the turn of the decade in 1970, however, the future of the environmental movement seemed bright. Riding the crest of 1960s turmoil and protests that were beginning to wane, environmentalism became a mass concern and new political movement. The first Earth Day on April 22, 1970 drew 20 million people to the streets, lectures, and teach-ins throughout the nation, making it the largest expression of public support for any cause in amerikan history. In this “decade of environmentalism,” the u.s. Congress passed new laws such as the Clean Air Act, and in 1970 President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. Some environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club (founded by John Muir in 1892) existed before the new movement, but grew in members, influence, and wealth like never before. The larger groups – known as the “Gang of Ten” — planted roots in Washington, DC, where they clamored for respectability and influence with politicians and polluters.
The movement’s insider/growth-oriented recipe for success, however, quickly turned into a formula for disaster. Many battles were won in treating the symptoms of a worsening ecological crisis, but the war against its causes was lost, or rather never fought in the first place. Potentially a radical force and check on capitalist profit, accumulation, and growth dynamics, the US environmental movement was largely a white, male, middle-class affair, cut off from the populist forces and the street energy that helped spawn it. Co-opted and institutionalized, cozying up with government and industry, mindful of the “taboo against social intervention in the production system” (Commoner), defense of Mother Earth became just another bland, reformist, compromised-based, single-interest lobbying effort.
Increasingly, the Gang of Ten resembled the corporations they criticized and, in fact, evolved into corporations and self-interested money making machines. Within behemoths such as the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club, decision-making originated from professionals at the top who neither had nor sought citizen input from the grassroots level. The Gang of Ten hired accountants and MBAs over activists, they spent more time on mass mailing campaigns than actual advocacy, and their riches were squandered largely on sustaining bloated budgets and six-figure salaries rather than protecting the environment. They brokered compromise deals to win votes for legislation that was watered-down, constantly revised to strengthen corporate interests, and poorly enforced. They not only did not fund grassroots groups, they even worked against them at times, forming alliances instead with corporate exploiters. Perversely, Gang of Ten organizations often legitimated and profited from greenwashing campaigns that presented corporate enemies of the environment as benevolent stewards and beacons of progress. 
Radical Backlash and the Grassroots Revolution
As Gang of Ten type organizations emerging in the u.s. and Europe spread throughout the globe (the World Wildlife Fund, for instance, established bases in over one hundred countries), they created a bureaucratic organization paradigm that shaped the structure of Western environmentalism. Yet, while mainstream environmental machines churned away ineffectively, and the plundering of the Earth expanded in scope and pace, waves of new approaches using militant tactics and seeking radical change surged forward in the u.s., the u.k., and throughout the globe.
These groups were motivated by profound dissatisfaction with mainstream environmentalism that was corporate, careerist, compromising, and – a key issue for many — divorced from the complex of social-environmental issues affecting women, the poor, workers, and people of color. Adopting more confrontational tactics and radical politics, the new orientations repudiated reformist models that sought merely to manage a growing environmental crisis through diluted legislation, illusory technofixes, and market-based “solutions” for market-based problems. Realizing the futility of working through the political and legal structures of corporate-controlled states, many groups adopted direct action tactics whereby they confronted oppressors on their own high-pressure terms through actions ranging from blockades to sabotage. Direct action is not just a tactic, but rather a process whereby activists develop decentralized and egalitarian politics based on cells, affinity groups, consensus decision making models, and use civil disobedience and/or sabotage tactics to empower themselves against corporate-state structures and facilitate social change impossible to achieve through pre-approved political channels.
Throughout the 1970s, the American Indian Movement (AIM) was absorbed in the struggle to defend itself from violent government attacks in order to preserve “Sovereignty, Land and Culture.” In 1971, Greenpeace was born as a new kind of direct action group protesting nuclear testing and protecting whales, but it condemned sabotage and degenerated into a Gang of Ten bureaucracy. In 1972, drawing on a host of spiritual sources including Native wisdom, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess formulated the biocentric “deep ecology” alternative to the anthropocentric “shallow ecology” of mainstream environmentalism, thereby promoting ecological and Earth-centered perspectives. The same year, Green Parties emerged in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, spread to the u.k. in 1973, surfaced in Germany by the end of the decade, and migrated thereafter to the u.s. and throughout the world. Broad-based and alliance-oriented, the international Green movement is organized around “core values” that include ecology, democracy, peace, feminism, respective for diversity, and social justice. In 1974, French writer Francoise d’ Eaubonne coined the term “ecofeminism” and the new framework was developed worldwide. As evident in groundbreaking analyses such as Carolyn Merchant’s book, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (1980), ecofeminists demonstrated strong links between the oppression of women and the domination of nature, such that ecology and feminism supported and required one another.
Evicted from Greenpeace in 1975 for the “violent” act of throwing a sealer’s club into the sea, Canadian Paul Watson turned to confrontational and sabotage-oriented actions to defend sea animals from attack, eventually founding the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. From the direct action culture of hunt saboteurs in england, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) was born in 1976. Freeing animals from captivity, attacking with hammers and fire, the ALF became a transnational underground group that advocated nonviolence, as splinter groups such as the Animal Rights Militia and the Justice Department urged attacking exploiters themselves, not just their property. Beginning in the mid-1970s, anti-nuclear and peace movements mushroomed in the u.s. and throughout Europe, especially in Germany, inspiring millions of people to embrace direct action and radical politics in the struggle for an ecological society. The u.s. Clamshell Alliance, for instance, formed in 1976 to stop the construction of nuclear reactors in the small town of Seabrook, New Hampshire. Despite thousands of members engaged in constant mass civil disobedience the Clamshell Alliance failed to prevent the completion of the Seabrook facility, but it was a key part of a larger movement that thwarted the development of nuclear power in the u.s. It was also an essential component of and contributor to an emerging “cultural revolution” that sought to change economic, political, and social structures in democratic and egalitarian directions, using direct action and anarchist-inspired tactics.
Direct action tactics, grassroots movements, and radical politics continued to proliferate during the 1980s. The ALF migrated to the u.s. and throughout the world, as Earth First! emerged in 1980 and changed the face of environmental struggle with militant civil disobedience and monkeywrenching actions. Earth First! spread from the u.s. to Australia in the early 1980s, and to the u.k. and Europe at large beginning in 1990. In the u.k., Earth First! landed amidst a political culture already radicalized in the 1980s by the Green Anarchist movement and magazine, which helped to promote Earth First! ideas and actions. Both Green Anarchism and Earth First! embraced “anarcho-primitivist” philosophies that repudiated “civilization” (defined as a complex of structures of domination and alienation such as technology, division of labor, and domestication) and advocated a return to hunting and gathering society. Primitivism was becoming more influential in the u.s. as well, developed in its most radical form by John Zerzan. Beginning in 1986, Murray Bookchin launched a fierce assault on deep ecology, Earth First!, and primitivism. On the surface, Bookchin’s blend of anarchism and ecology seemed compatible with other anarchist philosophies, but his emphasis was social, not personal, rational not spiritual, and forward not backward looking. He thereby excoriated these approaches – not always accurately — as mystical, asocial, apolitical, irrational, and atavistic, wholly unsuited for his goal to build a revolutionary social movement that could abolish oppression and transcend a capitalist system rooted ”grow-or-die” imperatives. Many activists understood the value of a social ecology orientation, but rejected Bookchin’s forced option of either social ecology or deep ecology. These people included Earth First! member Judi Bari, who worked in theory and practice to synthesize social ecology, deep ecology, and ecofeminism in a “revolutionary ecology” approach that was immensely influential in the u.k. during the 1990s.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the u.s. environmental movement broadened in scope and diversity with the proliferation of thousands of grass-roots environmental groups. These were organized by women, people of color, and community members to fight corporate pollution and exploitation. With no patrons, politicians, or corporate sponsors to answer to or offend, grassroots groups – such as spearheaded by Lois Gibbs to protest the 20,000 tons of chemical waste that sickened her community of Love Canal, New York — adopted a confrontational, no compromise approach and won battles the professionalized mainstream would or could not fight. A critical part of the grassroots revolution was the “environmental justice” movement that engaged environment, race, and social justice issues as one complex. Building on a long and sordid u.s. tradition of racism and discrimination, corporations and polluters targeted the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color to produce and discard their lethal substances. Far from the trimmed lawns and picket fences of privileged white neighborhoods, corporations ensconced themselves near people of color, where they built landfills and manufacturing plants, dumped hazardous and nuclear waste, operated incinerators, spewed deadly chemicals, and turned neighborhoods into toxic hazards. To protect their communities from this environmental terrorism, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics organized and fought back, proving that marginalized did not mean powerless.
An early expression of environmental justice was the Black revolutionary group, MOVE, founded in 1972 by John Africa and Donald Glassey, that railed against industrial pollution and related social and environmental problems to the exploitative dynamics of capitalism. Cesar Chavez emerged as a key figure in the environmental justice movement. In 1962, Chavez organized grape pickers into the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers of America. Influenced by the non-violent tactics of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Chavez fasted and marched to bring public attention to the plight of farm workers and he led national boycotts against grape growers in California. Beginning in the 1980s, Chavez called attention to “the plague of pesticides on our land and our food,” such as was poisoning Americans and had a direct effect on farm workers in the form of high cancer rates and birth defects in their children. The u.s. environmental justice movement reached a high point in October 1991, when the first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit convened. This conference proved that “it was possible to build a multi-issue, multiracial environmental movement around justice. Environmental activism was shown to be alive and well in African American, Latino American, Asian American, and Native American communities.”
The 1990s in england was a key period when activists broke decisively with mainstream environmentalism. In a country with traditional bonds to a countryside increasingly threatened by development, activists undertook major anti-roads campaigns to protect what precious little wilderness existed, and the number of direct actions rose dramatically. Breaking from the constraints of u.k. Earth First! in order to employ ALF-style sabotage tactics, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) appeared in the early 1990s, and spread like a brushfire throughout Ireland, Germany, France, Eastern Europe, Australia, the u.s., and elsewhere. In liberation of the Earth, the ELF burned down housing complexes under construction, torched SUVs and ski lodges, and ripped up biotech crops.
As ELF “elves” made their merry way across the u.s. and Europe, transnational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, ChevronTexaco, and Monsanto were advancing deep into the southern hemisphere and other areas ripe for “trade” and “development.” Their predatory advances were supported by new legal treaties and institutions, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), and bolstered by corrupt client states and brutal military forces. The onslaught of hydroelectric dams, commercial foresting, road building, mining, and agribusiness threatened lands, communities, and livelihoods. Indigenous peoples formed new “ecological resistance movements” (Taylor) and fought back in every possible way. The Zapatistas, for instance, announced their presence to the world just after midnight on January 1, 1994, the day that the North American Free Trade Agreement became operative among Mexico, the US, and Canada, crafted as a new imperialist weapon to undermine workers, the environment, and the rights and autonomy of indigenous populations. A stellar example of the new revolutionary politics, one that is alliance-oriented, egalitarian, and global in outlook, the Zapatistas promoted feminist values, consensus decision-making, ecological principles, a respect for all life, and the support and/or use of armed struggle.
As dramatically evident in the 1999 “Battle of Seattle,” “anti-“ or “alter-globalization” groups throughout the world recognized their common interests and fates and formed unprecedented kinds of alliances. The interests of workers, animals, and the environment alike were gravely threatened in a new world order where the WTO could override the laws of any nation state as “barriers to free trade.” Global capitalism was the common enemy recognized by world groups and peoples. Bridging national boundaries, North-South divisions, different political causes, and borders between activists of privilege and non-privileged communities, alter-globalization movements prefigured the future of revolutionary environmentalism as a global, anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist alliance politics, diverse in class, race, and gender composition.
Conceptualizing Revolutionary Environmentalism
“Enough is enough. Ya basta!’ Subcomandante Marcos after the first Chiapas Encuentro
In the last three decades, there has been growing awareness that environmentalism cannot succeed without social justice and social justice cannot be realized without environmentalism. To be sure, defending forests and protecting whales are vital actions to take, for they protect evolutionary processes and ecological systems vital to the planet and all species and peoples within it. Yet at the same time, it is also critical to fight side-by-side with oppressed peoples in order to address all forms of environmental destruction and build a movement far greater in numbers and strength than possible with a single-issue focus. Such a holistic orientation can be seen in the international Green network, the u.s. environmental justice movement, Earth First! efforts (as initiated by Judi Bari) to join with timber workers, alter-globalization channels, Zapatista coalition building, and often in the communiqués and actions of ALF and ELF activists. Such a form of alliance politics is visible also in recent efforts to build bridges among animal, Earth, and Black liberationists and anti-imperialists (as evident in this book). These various dynamics are part and parcel of the emergence of global revolutionary environmentalism.
There are key similarities between what has been called “radical environmentalism” – which include social ecology, deep ecology, ecofeminism, Earth First!, and primitivism – and what we term “revolutionary environmentalism.” Among other things, both approaches reject mainstream environmentalism, attack core ideologies and/or institutions that have caused the ecological crisis, often adopt spiritual outlooks and see nature as sacred, reject the binary opposition separating humans from nature, and in many cases support or adopt illegal tactics such as civil disobedience or monkeywrenching. However, a key distinguishing trait of revolutionary environmentalism is that it supports and/or employs illegal tactics ranging from property destruction for the purpose of economic sabotage to guerilla warfare and armed struggle, recognizing that violent methods of resistance are often appropriate against fascist regimes and right-wing dictatorships. Revolutionary environmentalism counters forces of oppression with equally potent forms of resistance, and uses militant tactics when they are justified, necessary, and effective. With the advance of the global capitalist juggernaut and increasing deterioration of the Earth’s ecological systems, ever more people may realize that no viable future will arise without large-scale social transformation, a process that requires abolishing global capitalism and imperialism, and would thereby embrace revolutionary environmentalism.
As evident in the communiqués of the ALF and ELF, as well as in the views of Black liberationists, anarchists, and anti-imperialists, many activists are explicitly revolutionary in their rhetoric, analysis, vision, and political identities. Revolutionary environmentalists renounce reformist approaches that aim only to manage the symptoms of the global ecological crisis and never dare or think to probe its underlying dynamics and causes. Revolutionary environmentalists seek to end the destruction of nature and peoples, not merely to slow its pace, temper its effects, or plug holes in a dam set to burst. They don’t just aim to “manage” the catastrophic consequences of the project to dominate nature; they seek to abolish the very hierarchy whereby humans think and act as if they were separate from nature and thereby pursue the deluded goal of mastery and control. The objectives revolutionary environmentalists raise as necessary for a viable future cannot be realized within the present world system and require a rupture with it.
Revolutionary environmentalists recognize the need for fundamental changes on many levels, such as with human psychologies (informed by anthropocentric worldviews, values, and identities), interpersonal relations (mediated by racism, sexism, ageism, classism, homophobia, and elitism), social institutions (governed by authoritarian, plutocratic, and corrupt or pseudo-democratic forms), technologies (enforcing labor and exploitation imperatives and driven by fossil-fuels that cause pollution and global warming), and the prevailing economic system (an inherently destructive and unsustainable global capitalism driven by profit, production, and consumption imperatives). Revolutionary environmentalists see “separate” problems as related to the larger system of global capitalism and reject the reformist concept of “green capitalism” as a naïve oxymoron. They repudiate the logics of marketization, economic growth, and industrialization as inherently violent, exploitative, and destructive, and seek ecological, democratic, and egalitarian alternatives.
As the dynamics that brought about global warming, rainforest destruction, species extinction, and poisoning of communities are not reducible to any single factor or cause — be it agricultural society, the rise of states, anthropocentrism, speciesism, patriarchy, racism, colonialism, industrialism, technocracy, or capitalism – all radical groups and orientations that can effectively challenge the ideologies and institutions implicated in domination and ecological destruction have a relevant role to play in the global social-environmental struggle.
 For critiques of mainstream environmentalism, see Kirkpatrick Sale, The Green Revolution: The American Environmental Movement 1962-1992. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993; and Mark Dowie, Losing Ground. More recently, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus proclaimed the “death of Environmentalism,” arguing that it rests upon “unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts, and exhausted strategies” (see:http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/). Renouncing the mainstream’s single-issue approach, they call for broadening environmentalism into a multi-issue social movement. Many grassroots activists, however, found their vision far too narrow. For multiracial critiques of their analysis, see Ludovic Blain, “Ain’t I an Environmentalist?”; Oscar Aguilar, “Why I Am Not an Environmentalist,”http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/31/
aguilar/index.html; and Michel Gelobter et.al, “The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering Transformational Politics in the 21st Century” (http://www.rprogress.org/soul/soul.pdf).
 For examples of greenwashing and “environmental” groups serving the cause of corporate propaganda, see Dowie, Losing Ground, pp. 53-59; and Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Toxic Sludge is Good For You! Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999.
 See Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella II, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. New York: Lantern Books, 2004.
 See Barbara Epstein, Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Non-Violent Direct Action of the 1970s and 1980s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991.
 By far and away, the harshest critic of deep ecology, Earth First!, and primitivism – reviled as being racist, misanthropic, mystical, irrational, and atavistic — is social ecologist Murray Bookchin (see, for example, Murray Bookchin, Re-Enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit Against Anti-Humanism, Misanthropy, Mysticism, and Primitivism. London: Cassell, 1995). Although Bookchin makes a number of important points against these movements, he often takes statements out of context and fails to account for the diversity and competing divisions within groups, such as existed in Earth First! between the “wilders” (e.g., Dave Foreman and Christopher Manes) and social-oriented “holies” (e.g., Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney). For critiques of Bookchin’s one-dimensional readings of deep ecology and Earth First!, see Bron Taylor, “Earth First! and Global Narratives of Popular Ecological Resistance,” Bron Taylor (ed.), Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995); and “The Religion and Politics of Earth First!,” The Ecologist, 21 , November-December, 1991.
 Judi Bari, “Revolutionary Ecology: Biocentrism and Deep Ecology,”http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html.
 In her transformation from housewife to environmentalist, emblematic of the politicization of citizens at the grassroots level in the 1980s and 1990s, Gibbs organized her neighborhood against Hooker Chemical Company, created the Love Canal Homeowners Association, sparked President Carter’s approval of a paid evacuation for the 900 families stranded in Love Canal, and was a force behind the creation of the Superfund – all without membership in the Gang of Ten. In 1981 she created the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (http://www.chej.org/), and subsequently won numerous honors.
 A good introduction to the environmental justice movement is Robert D. Bullard (ed.), Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice & Communities of Color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1994. In an interview with Earth First! Journal, Bullard clarifies the environmental justice position by emphasizing that it does not favor human environments over wilderness and other species, but rather includes those issues in a broader framework. As he puts it, “environmental justice incorporates the idea that we are just as much concerned about wetlands, birds and wilderness areas, but we’re also concerned with urban habitats, where people live in cities, about reservations, about things that are happening along the US-Mexican border, about children that are being poisoned by lead in housing and kids playing outside in contaminated playgrounds” (http://www.ejnet.org/ej/bullard.html). Also see Daniel Fisk (ed.), The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States (New York: Guilford Press, 1998), and Aaron Sachs, Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment (Worldwatch Institute Paper #127, December 1995). A helpful online resource for environmental justice can be found at: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/index.html. For critiques of the environmental movement as dominated by white, privileged interests and calls for a multiracial environmental movement, see Michel Gelobter et.al, “The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering Transformational Politics in the 21st Century”; Ludovic Blain, “Ain’t I an Environmentalist?” (http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/31/blain-
death/index.html); Adrienne Maree Brown, “Rainbow Warrior” (http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/15/brown/); Eliza Strikland, “The New Face of Environmentalism” (http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/111005EB.shtml); and Ewuare Osayande, “Choking Back Black Liberation: Revisioning Environmentalism” (http://www.seac.org/threshold-backup/sept04.pdf).
 “MOVE’s work is to stop industry from poisoning the air, the water, the soil, and to put an end to the enslavement of life — people, animals, any form of life” (cited athttp://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Move.html). MOVE’s subversive presence in Philadelphia ended dramatically when police dropped a bomb on their house, killing 6 adults and 5 children. While MOVE is widely recognized as a radical and innovative movement, many members of the feminist and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) communities believe that MOVE founders adopted regressive views toward women and homosexuals based on a dogmatic, patriarchal, and homophobic interpretation of “natural law.”
 Robert D. Bullard, “Environmental Justice For All,” in Bullard (ed.),Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice & Communities of Color, p. 7.
 On the history of environmentalism in england, see Derek Wall, Green History: Reader in Environmental Literature, Philosophy, and Politics. London: Routledge, 2003. For more recent histories of sabotage and direct action tactics, see Wall’s earlier book, Earth First and the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and Comparative Social Movements. London: Routledge, 1999; and also Benjamin Seel, Matthew Paterson, and Brian Doherty (eds.), Direct Action in British Environmentalism. London: Routledge, 2000. For an excellent example of the broad sense of revolutionary environmentalism that we are articulating here – an uncompromising, anti-hierarchy, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist social-ecological movement in solidarity with all oppressed world peoples – see the u.k. journal, Do or Die: Voices from the Ecological Resistance.
 On the resistance movements against global capitalism, see Jeremy Brecher, Tim, Costello, and Brendan Smith, Globalization From Below: The Power of Solidarity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: South End Press, 2000; and Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner, “Resisting Globalization,” in G. Ritzer (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006.
 For a thorough exploration of the social-environmental relationship from a radical anarchist perspective that builds on social ecology and offers concrete proposals for a revolutionary remaking of the world, see Takis Fotopolous, Towards An Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project (London/New York: Cassell/ Continuum, 1997), as well as essays in the journal Democracy and Nature (http://www.democracynature.org/dn/).
 For significant works on “radical environmentalism,” see Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990; Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. Chicago: The Noble Press, Inc., 1990; and Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search For a Livable World. New York: Routledge, 1992. Bron Taylor provides a useful overview of “Radical Environmentalism” and “Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front” in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. London: Thoemmes, 2005, and also available online athttp://www.religionandnature.com/ern/sample.htm. Another useful article, from an eco-socialist and revolutionary perspective, is John Bellamy Foster, “Organizing Ecological Revolution,” Monthly Review, Volume 7 Number 5, online at: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1005jbf.htm.
 It is critical to point out that contributors to this volume use different terms to talk about similar or the same things; thus, in addition to “revolutionary environmentalism,” one will also see references to “radical environmentalism,” “radical ecology,” or “revolutionary ecology.” It is natural that different people discussing new ecological resistance movements will use different terminology, and we did not attempt to impose our own discourse of “revolutionary environmentalism” on any of the authors, although some do use the term “revolutionary environmentalism.” While there is a general consensus in the need for a militant resistance movement and social transformation, we leave it to the reader to interpret and compare the different philosophical and political perspectives.