Climate activists criticized the North Dakota Tribunal’s decision to order Greenpeace to pay oil companies $660 million (£58 million) in damages, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that threatens the future of its right to protest in the United States.
Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), argued that Greenpeace had denounced the honor loss, trespassing and conspiracy, and that environmental groups spread false information and spread false activity during the 2016-2017 pipeline protest.
After two days of deliberation, ju apprentices on Wednesday convicted the environmental groups in almost every number and ordered Greenpeace USA to pay the oil company $404 million (£311 million). Greenpeace Fund Inc and Greenpeace International have been ordered to pay approximately $131 million (£100 million) each.
Energy Transfer framed the verdict as a victory over what is called “lawless” activism.
“This victory has had to overcome the daily harassment and confusion that has been caused by protesters funded and trained by Greenpeace,” the company said.
The attorney, Trey Cox, argued that the case proved Greenpeace “abused” his right to protest.
Green Peace It was rejected The claim calls the lawsuit a blatant attempt to bankrupt environmental defenders and silence dissent.
The group said the ruling is part of a broader corporate effort to erode free speech and curb the environmental movement.
“While massive oil bullying around the world continues to silence free speech and peaceful protests, the fight against the useless slap lawsuit of energy transfer is not over,” the organization said.
Interim Executive Director Sushma Raman called the case an “attack on fundamental rights” and a threat to a group that challenged a powerful company.
“We all need to be concerned about the First Amendment future and the lawsuits like this aimed at destroying the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech,” she said.
It’s green peas I swear To appeal the ruling, the organization said last month that it could be forced to go bankrupt due to the case in order to end more than 50 years of activism. Many activists thought the ruling was a strategic attempt to silence the objection and set a dangerous precedent for the right to protest in the United States.
Veteran trial lawyer Marty Garvas called the minutes he witnessed in his six-year career, “one of the most unfair trials” “one of the most unfair trials.” “The law falling in this case can affect religious or political demonstrations, much greater than environmental movements,” he said.
“It’s much bigger than the environmental movement.”
Oscar Soria, co-CEO of the Common Initiative and former Greenpeace leader Independence The verdict was “a dangerous precedent that threatens the fundamental right to peaceful protests in America.”
“This outrageous verdict is nothing more than a corporate tyranny that pretends to be justice,” he said.
Climate activist and founder of the Satatsusampada Climate Foundation, Harjit Singh has been called “a big set-off for the climate and social justice movement that fights to protect the rights of people and our planets.”
“This domination attempts to silence those who oppose the destructive power of fossil fuel companies. But this struggle will not end, and we will not be threatened,” he said. Independence.
“The responsibility for environmental destruction and the escalating climate crisis lies straight to the fossil fuel companies, and we must continue to remain accountable to them.
The Standing Rocksou tribe, who led the protest against DAPL, denounced the lawsuit for attempts to rewrite history.
“The transfer of energy is frivolously claiming honor losses and seeking money damages designed to close all voices that support standing lock.” Janet Alchia, the tribe chair of the Standing Rocksou tribe, said.
Tribes have long argued that pipelines will transcend the lands of the Sioux National Treaty and pose a threat to their water resources and communities.
Ms Alkaia said the protests were called and organized by the tribes, with Greenpeace and other environmental groups acting as allies.
“The Standing Rocksioux tribes will not be silent,” she said.
Greenpeace’s legal team also criticized the lawsuit erasing Indigenous leaders in the movement.
“What we’ve seen over the last three weeks was that energy transfer ignored the voices of the Standing Rocksou tribe,” said Deepa Padmanava, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace USA.
Kelsey Warren, the founder of the Energy Transfer Billionaire and a leading donor to Donald Trump, confirmed in a video deposition that his company provided financial incentives to the Standing Rocksou tribe to end the protest, including money, luxury ranches and new schools. According to Monitors who observed the lawsuit went to trial.
They said the tribes have rejected the offer and that Standing Rock’s leadership claims that their opposition to the pipeline is based on protecting their land and water.
“Offers like these represent the strategies that the extraction industry often employs, ensuring compliance and mitigating opposition from affected communities,” the group wrote.
Natali Segovia, executive director of Water Protector Legal Collective, argued that the lawsuit was not about justice, but about the control of the story. “The incident was a deliberate orchestration by pipeline companies to not only silence the objections, but also carefully shape the corporate narrative that demonizes environmental justice and Indigenous rights movements,” she said.
With Greenpeace set to appeal the decision, legal experts said the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and set the direction of future environmental and rights movements.
“When the world needs people to stand up to the erosion of this country’s clear rights, the verdict on Greenpeace must be designed to discourage them from exercising their constitutional rights to fear and protest,” said President Jeanne Miller of the International Democratic Association.
The ruling also raises concerns about the financial sustainability of rights groups like Greenpeace. Experts say it’s unlikely that most organizations will be able to cover large legal costs.
However, the petition in Greenpeace’s French chapter called on people to show support for the oil company “GAG ORDER.”
Mad Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said:
