Greenpeace, Energy Transfer and the demise of environmental activism

Environmental and activist groups have warned that a landmark defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace USA could have a "chilling" effect on free speech and the right to protest.

What was the ruling?

A jury in North Dakota last week found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts related to demonstrations dating back to 2016 aimed at disrupting the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Energy Transfer, one of the largest pipeline companies in the US, brought the suit. It claimed the environmental group had funded and encouraged the protests, damaging the company's reputation and costing it as much as $340 million. The jury agreed and ordered Greenpeace to pay $667 million in damages.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What has the reaction been?

Greenpeace, which had said it would have to declare bankruptcy and close its US operations if it was found liable, has promised to appeal the court decision. But environmental groups have nevertheless reacted with "shock and dismay", said The Guardian.

"Chilling" is how the head of one advocacy group described the ruling, said The Times. Anne Jellema, executive director 350.org, said it "sends a dangerous message: that fossil fuel giants can weaponise the courts to bankrupt and silence those who challenge the destruction of our planet".

Marty Garbus, a lawyer who represented Nelson Mandela and civil rights campaigner Cesar Chavez, described it as "one of the most important cases in American history" and "far bigger than the environmental movement", said The Times.

But Republicans and business groups have hailed the verdict. Doug Burgum, the former governor of North Dakota who is now interior secretary in the Trump administration, described it as a victory "for the rule of law", while the North Dakota senator Kevin Cramer said it would make Greenpeace "think twice now about doing it again".

Greenpeace "says the lawsuit is retribution for exercising its First Amendment speech and protest rights," said an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, "but there's no First Amendment right to defame or destroy.

"If the verdict deters other self-righteous outfits from aiding violent protests, including those against Israel, so much the better."

What does it mean for other protest movements?

The ruling will undoubtedly "encourage other oil and gas companies to legally pursue environmental protesters at a time when Donald Trump's energy agenda is in ascendancy", said The Guardian, but its impact "stretches far beyond any individual organisation" and even the green movement itself.

Amnesty International said the "devastating" verdict "sets an array of deeply damaging precedents on the rights to freedom of speech, association and peaceful protest".

The success of the so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit – and the heavy penalty dealt out to Greenpeace – "stands to silence other activists who speak up against big companies", said Time.

The rise in anti-protest bills in the US since 2017 – tracked by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law – mirrors a wider pattern globally in recent years. "The right to protest is under threat across the world from big corporations and self-interested politicians who threaten our democracies," said Matilda Flemming, director of Friends of the Earth Europe.