Understanding the $660 Million Greenpeace Verdict: A New Era for U.S. Activism

A jury in North Dakota recently ruled that Greenpeace is liable for defamation and conspiracy related to the Dakota Access pipeline protests from 2016 to 2017. The verdict came with a staggering $660 million damages award for Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline. Legal experts believe this decision may discourage environmental activism across the U.S.

Jennifer Safstrom, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, stated that this ruling could create a “chilling effect” on other groups fighting against oil and gas interests. Josh Galperin, a law professor at Pace University, called the verdict “unprecedented,” highlighting the massive damages awarded.

As climate change impacts grow, many activists have taken to the streets to challenge fossil fuel projects. This legal win for Energy Transfer shows that companies can successfully go after protest groups. Michael Gerrard from Columbia University mentioned that this could encourage more firms to pursue legal actions against activists.

Despite the ruling, Greenpeace plans to appeal and has filed a countersuit in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer. Laura Handman, a lawyer for Greenpeace, emphasized that the story is not finished yet. Energy Transfer welcomed the decision, insisting that Greenpeace’s actions caused them significant financial harm and damage to their reputation.

Greenpeace argues that the case reflects a trend known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), which are meant to intimidate activists. North Dakota lacks laws that protect organizations from such lawsuits, making it easier for Energy Transfer to pursue this case.

Legal experts stress the importance of understanding state laws for advocacy groups. Caroline Chen, from New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, noted that knowing their rights is crucial for environmental organizations.

The Dakota Access pipeline protests began in April 2016, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which raised concerns about environmental risks. The protests gained momentum, initially resulting in a halt from the Obama administration. However, in early 2017, President Trump reversed the decision and allowed the pipeline’s completion.

Following the protests, North Dakota passed laws from 2017 to 2019 that increased penalties for civil disobedience, particularly targeting oil and gas protests. Similar laws have appeared in 18 other states as well, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, worsening the climate for energy activists.

In essence, this case could reverberate across the country, shaping how environmental protests are conducted and challenged in the future. The outcome raises significant questions about the balance between corporate interests and the rights of activists fighting for the planet.



Source link

greenpeace, Dakota Access pipeline, oil, U.S., energy, environment, climate change