As the Trump administration pursues a mission to develop America’s fossil fuel resources, people must unfortunately brace for the impending countermovements from environmental activists who increasingly deploy destructive tactics to gain attention and spread their message.
While the Biden administration was largely friendly to environmental causes, it was not immune to disruptive and confrontational protests against its officials. Protesters chanting “Petro Pete” chased former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg offstage at a Maryland policy forum in 2023. Roughly 100 activists attempted to blockade former President Joe Biden’s Department of Energy last December. Biden even found himself interrupted by a climate protester during a speech honoring the late Sen. John McCain.
If this is how the environmental movement treats its friends, one can only imagine the lengths it will go against President Donald Trump, who has vowed to “drill, baby, drill.” People should be concerned because environmental activists aren’t just protesting. They are vandalizing works of art and culture. In the past year alone, they have put adhesive stickers on a Monet painting, thrown tomato soup on the works of Van Gogh and the Mona Lisa, and sprayed orange paint on Stonehenge.
Protesters are also actively interfering with commerce, upending the lives of ordinary citizens. Last May, climate activists glued themselves to the runway of a busy German airport, leading to flight cancellations and delays. In April, protesters blocked traffic during rush hour in Boston, a tactic they had previously employed over multiple days in Washington, D.C., provoking angry responses from commuters unable to get to work.
If the day-to-day concerns of the working class don’t resonate with these environmental protesters, perhaps it’s because so few of them come from it. A recent Brookings Institution paper found that the most radical flank of environmentalists are overwhelmingly white (93%), middle-aged (average age of 52), and highly educated, with 91% having completed college and one-third having an advanced degree.
These highly educated, what they would deem “privileged,” groups care far more about the opinions of wealthy progressive groups such as the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, which keeps a global tracker of climate protests and their outcomes. They are also cheered on by bureaucrats at the United Nations, who issued a report calling for countries to listen to these disruptive protesters rather than enforce the multiple laws they are breaking.
This is just one of many issues the United Nations gets wrong. When environmental protesters break the law, they should be prosecuted just like any other people. To do otherwise sends a dangerous message that their cause puts them above the law.
An impending court case in North Dakota could help deliver that message. In 2016, Greenpeace helped organize and sustain “protests” against a lawful pipeline project in the state. The Greenpeace-backed protesters destroyed property, set fires, and engaged in violent riots.
The broader movement also targeted banks and financial institutions thought to be financing the project. In one case, a Denver bank had its windows smashed and was graffitied with anti-pipeline rhetoric. Ultimately, after protests turned violent, six banks pulled their financing for the project.
While the pipeline was ultimately built, a University of Colorado study found that the environmental terrorism campaign cost the energy company and its partners constructing the pipeline an estimated $7.5 billion. The company is now suing Greenpeace, alleging the group helped organize and fund the costly and damaging demonstrations.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech and protest, but it does not give organizations or individuals the right to engage in violence and destruction. When laws are broken and property is destroyed, there must be consequences. “Climate action” is not a defense to illegal action.
As the Trump administration delivers on its energy development promises, outraged radical environmental activists deserve to have their say. But while protecting their rights, the justice system must also protect the rights of the rest of society by holding accountable any activists, as well as their Big Green backers, who go beyond vitriol and engage in vandalism and violence to bully those with whom they disagree. The decisions made in the North Dakota case will set the tone for whether, in the future, activist groups are permitted to fund and perpetuate crimes when their arguments fail to persuade the majority.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.