Environmental terrorism is an old type of conflict with a new face. Large, costly warsbetween two or more states have become less prevalent over the past 50 years, and with the endof the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, there has been no bipolar superpower standoff to suppress the many ethnic, religious, and multipolar political and cultural tensions thatmotivate terrorist actions. Even the very nature of terrorism itself is changing. Attacks arebecoming lethal to a greater number of people, as the events of September 11, 2001demonstrated to the world. Most recent discussions of terrorism have focused on the identity ofthe terrorists, their motivations, and the increasingly destructive potential of the “weapons” at their disposal. However, to date, there has been relatively little discussion about their choice oftargets. Environmental security scholars know that a strong argument can be made for linkingcertain resource and environmental problems with the prospects for political tension, or even warand peace. History shows that access to resources has been a proximate cause of war, resourceshave been both tools and targets of war, and environmental degradation and disparity in thedistribution of resources can cause major political controversy, tension, and violence1.

Terrorism experts have opined that in the last decade, the nature of terrorism has changedfrom professional, politically-motivated acts to amateur acts motivated by any number ofgrievances: religious, social, political, or personal2. There are well known ambiguities indefining “terrorism” and specifically “environmental terrorism.” Yet there are also real risksfacing governments and the public and that an effort must be made to better understand theserisks and appropriate responses. An examination of environmental terrorism adds a newdimension to these definitions, identifying the target as a natural resource or environmentalfeature. At a time when populations all over the world are increasing, the existing resource baseis being stretched to provide for more people, and is being consumed at a faster rate. As thevalue and vulnerability of these resources increases, so does their attractiveness as terroristtargets. The destruction of a natural resource can now cause more deaths, property damage,political chaos, and other adverse effects than it would have in any previous decade.

This paper will define environmental terrorism as distinct from eco-terrorism and fromenvironmental warfare, discuss the risk of environmental terrorism as a function of consequenceand probability, and examine various types of attacks that use the environment both as a targetand a tool of terror. Finally, several ideas for reducing the risk of environmental terrorism willbe discussed.