I have often wondered about the mind and the psyche behind the radical environmentalist and the eco-terrorist.  What drives the Greenpeacers and the FOEers to do the things that they do, and how do they justify their often mystifying positions and actions?  To my mind, their actions often border on the asinine and are often similar and reflective of the actions of juvenile delinquents and other deviants of society.

So, what has juvenile delinquents got in common with radical environmentalists and how does this relate to palm oil?  Plenty, as we will see in due course.

It was Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1957) that posited that juvenile delinquents generally accept societal norms.  Therefore, when delinquents engage in deviant acts, the departure from accepted norms must be accounted for and justified to assuage or neutralize feelings of guilt.   The theorists went on to enumerate various “techniques of neutralization” used by juveniles to explain their situational violation of otherwise accepted rules and they named this theory the theory of neutralization.

Juvenile delinquents may see their criminal behavior as justified. While Sykes and Matza noted that justifications after the criminal act were common (rationalizations), they also theorized that justifications precede (neutralizations), and in effect, enable, criminal behaviors.

The process is described succinctly by the theory’s authors: Disapproval flowing from internalized norms and in conformity with others in the social environment is neutralized, turned back, or deflected in advance. Social controls that serve to check or inhibit deviant motivational patterns are rendered inoperative, and the individual is freed to engage in delinquency without serious damage to his self-image. (666-667). Sykes and Matza enumerated five techniques used by juvenile delinquents and serial radical environmentalists to neutralize and render inoperative internal and external social controls: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to a higher cause.

An interesting study called “Neutralization Theory and Ideologically-Motivated Crime: The Case of Radical Environmentalism” (i) , sought to determine if, and to what extent, ideologically-motivated criminals, including radical environmentalists—defined here as those persons who commit crimes to advance a political, religious, or social philosophy— use techniques of neutralization to justify their behavior.

The nub of the matter is that radical environmentalists, like juvenile delinquents do use the techniques of neutralization to justify their inane, destructive and deviant acts in the name of environmentalism.

Take Greenpeace for instance.  In a recent communiqué, Greenpeace alleged that the first shipload of palm oil certified as “sustainable oil” and due to arrive in Rotterdam on Tuesday, does not meet the criteria set for an environmentally friendly product.

In classic Greenpeace fashion, they attempted to prevent the loading of crude palm oil on the Isola Corallo, a Rotterdam-bound tanker in Dumai, Indonesia's main palm oil export port.

A Greenpeace activist was locked onto the anchor chain of the Isola Corallo for over 36 hours to stop it from moving. The Greenpeace ship, Esperanza, then occupied the palm oil loading facility to prevent the Isola Corrallo from loading Sinar Mas palm oil. The Esperanza was finally forced off the berth by Port authority tugs after a seven hour face-off.

Greenpeace’s position against United Plantation’s (UP) first shipment of RSPO certified palm oil as both perplexing as well as, in its fullest and noxious form, most foul.

Alleging that United Plantations, the company producing the sustainable palm oil, is violating sustainable standards by cutting down trees from vulnerable peat forests in Kalimantan, Indonesia, Greenpeace has proved true to form with their tirade of half-truths and equivocations.

In a measured and calm response, UP addressed Greenpeace’s allegations point for point, observing that most of the allegations are untrue and misrepresents the true facts on the ground.  

For example, Greenpeace’s alleged that UP had violated Principle 7 Criterion 7.3 of the RSPO, since no High Conservation Value (HCV) assessment was carried out for United Plantations on PT SSS1, a parcel of land in Indonesia acquired by UP. UP pointed out that contrary to Greenpeace’s allegation, a HCV assessment was indeed completed for the Runtu property of PT SSS1 on 21st January 2008 subsequent to the main assessment announcement posted on the RSPO web-site in January 2008. In their response, UP observed dryly that “had Greenpeace consulted United Plantations prior to making the report, we would have gladly made available the Comprehensive HCV report prepared y the relevant Indonesian experts.”

In the view of the Palm Oil Truth Foundation, considering Greenpeace’s record and propensity for the melodramatic and obvious predilection to stretch the truth, this episode, like so many others before it, is just more egg on the face of Greenpeace!  However, like all criminal deviants of society, we can expect, Greenpeace to use the techniques of neutralization to justify their inexplicable, destructive and inane position and acts against palm oil!  THE END.

References

(i) http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/1/0/5/pages201056/p201056-1.php