I personally think that the environmentalists are negatively affected by extremist tactics because of how harm it is as well as an explosion erupting. I personally think that the environmentalist are negatively affected by extremist tactics because it is unhealthy for the environment as well as unhealthy for the atmosphere.
Even though people disagree over how best to protect the environment, or over how much to spend on environmental protection compared to other social priorities, most people really believe protecting the environment is important. Yet many of these people have a negative view of environmentalists, in large part because extremist rhetoric and acts have soured painted a negative image of environmentalists and polarized the public. This has made agreeing on prudent environmental protection more difficult and undermined the advancement of environmentalism.
Using extreme tactics to prove a point not only alienates those who might support the principle, it can actually harm the very thing the environmentalists are apt to save. For example, sitting in a fragile tree for months on end to put a stop to insecticides used in the forest can kill the very tree the environmentalist is out to preserve. In addition, killing a doctor and his staff at an abortion clinic is hardly pro-life.
I believe environmentalists are negatively affected by extremist tactics, but this is often the case for many people and organizations. I believe environmentalists should be better prepared to take on these extreme views and further uphold their viewpoints. I believe fact based evidence is the best thing to use in defense of this type of tactic.
There are far more non-violent protests against the destruction of the environment that there are violent outbursts in the name of protecting the Earth. And yet these violent outbursts get more coverage in the media. Why is that? I mean the vary name environmentalist is almost synonymous with violence. Could it be that it fits a convenient narrative? In fact, going back to the 80s, we can trace efforts to link social justice movements to either dirty-hippies or bomb throwing radicals. These efforts have paid off in a big way because now people think that any effort to organize will lead to violence, so that try to let the government fix it. How? By electing people to office who benefit directly from the destruction of the environment. This question presents a false premise and plays into their hands.
I do not believe environmentalists are harmed by extremism because the main counterpoint against most environmental efforts is their perceived lack of economic sustainability (which may or may not be justified). As a person informed in environmental efforts, I do not hear about anything much more than trying to get people to use efficient architecture, preserving natural habitats and saving endangered species. The usual environmental efforts imply that money be directed toward environmental efforts and little else. If an environmentalist wants to do something like cut spending in huge amounts on important sectors of government in order to appease perceived needs, then they will most likely not make any leeway and be considered in the minority.