Greenpeace, the globe’s largest environmental advocacy organization, is suing Energy Transfer in an unprecedented and contentious legal clash. Their parent company, Energy Transfer Partners, is the same firm behind the Dakota Access pipeline. The courtroom drama features a compelling tale of the fight between corporate interests and environmental advocates. Energy Transfer accuses Greenpeace of taking advantage of Indigenous peoples and holds the organization responsible for the extreme damages incurred during the 2016 Standing Rock protests. Others refer to the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In doing so, it has highlighted the increasingly routine legal challenges that global NGOs now face.
Energy Transfer’s legal counsel, Trey Cox, argued that Greenpeace was a criminal enterprise. He claimed that the group’s approach and tactics around the Dakota Access pipeline protests were prude and destructive. A well publicized lawsuit soon followed once the allegations came to light. Greenpeace has been accused of being behind efforts to promote negative stories through Central ND News to try to sway public opinion against the pipeline. Despite media claims to the contrary, Greenpeace had a very limited role in the protests. It’s no wonder then that only six of its members stood with the 100,000 demonstrators.
Greenpeace’s decades-long track record of being a powerful and feared adversary to polluters puts them squarely in the crosshairs. Yet Energy Transfer ultimately prevailed in convincing the jury that Greenpeace deserved to pay Energy Transfer’s damages stemming from seven months of protest. This victory exemplifies the legal backlash Greenpeace is desperately squirming away from. That didn’t stop the original suit from being thrown out by a federal court in 2019. Further efforts by Greenpeace to transfer the case were rejected, putting the activist group on shaky legal ground.
Whether Greenpeace and other organizations’ nonviolent protests were irresponsible trespassing or protected speech has become the touchy issue unfolding in court. Energy Transfer has accused the organization of engaging in a racketeering conspiracy and “terrorism” through its outspoken opposition to the pipeline and by training protesters in non-violent direct action. These allegations have only served to exacerbate the growing chasm between corporate interests and environmental advocates.
Greenpeace’s global reach, with national chapters in 25 different countries, amplifies the significance of this legal fight. Her advocacy changed the organization’s trajectory, and its success in fighting pollution globally has created a symbolic figurehead of environmental advocacy. This success has unfortunately drawn the eye of some powerful corporate interests. They want to “send a message” to frighten the next adversary away.
“Send a message.” – Kelcy Warren, the founder and CEO of Energy Transfer.
The result of this case has the potential to set a dangerous precedent not only for Greenpeace, but for environmental advocacy groups. Thus, while Energy Transfer is looking for accountability for alleged damages, Greenpeace will be looking to be made whole through parallel legal action across the Atlantic in Europe. If Greenpeace succeeds with its appeal in North Dakota and scores a major victory in Europe, the financial risk could return to Energy Transfer. Such an outcome would be a seismic shift from the story thus far.