Greenpeace official discusses $300M lawsuit filed against the organization

• A $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace, filed by Energy Transfer, is moving forward, with opening statements happening this week. The company claims Greenpeace orchestrated protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, causing it financial harm.
• Greenpeace denies the allegations, arguing that tribal leaders led the movement and that the lawsuit is an attempt to silence environmental advocacy, while Energy Transfer claims the protest was peaceful until the environmental advocacy group arrived.
• The trial is expected to last five weeks before jury deliberations take place, with Greenpeace prepared to appeal if the ruling is unfavorable.

---

Full Story

The $300 million lawsuit filed against Greenpeace over its involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline is proceeding. Opening statements took place during the week of Feb. 24 in a North Dakota courthouse.

The lawsuit, initiated by pipeline operator Energy Transfer, alleges that Greenpeace played a masterminded the 2016 demonstrations at the Standing Rock Reservation opposing the project. Energy Transfer accused the environmental group of defamation, conspiracy and other unlawful actions that it claims harmed its business during the pipeline’s development.

What is Greenpeace’s response to this lawsuit?

Greenpeace, however, denies all of these claims. A senior strategist for the group, Charlie Cray, addressed the case, telling Straight Arrow News that Energy Transfer’s allegations of defamation are “frankly ridiculous.” He added that the company has presented an “aggressive argument” and acknowledged it could be a “a tough trial.”

“Greenpeace had nothing to do with orchestrating the protest at Standing Rock,” Cray said. “I think they’re going after Greenpeace because they don’t want to see organizations like Greenpeace join activists on the front lines of the climate justice movement. They want to make nonprofits think twice.”

Greenpeace also asserted that the lawsuit is an infringement on its First Amendment rights. Cray contended that the litigation is an attempt to “silence” and “muzzle” environmental advocacy groups, preventing organizations like Greenpeace from supporting climate justice activists.

How does Greenpeace describe its role in the protest?

According to Cray, Greenpeace had six representatives who traveled to the protest site only after demonstrations had already begun. He also criticized Energy Transfer’s assertion that Greenpeace was the driving force behind the movement, calling it a “racist rewrite of the history of Standing Rock.”

Cray argued that tribal leaders and grassroots activists led the protests and that targeting Greenpeace undermines their leadership.

“They’re essentially displacing the leadership at the grassroots and tribal level of the movement that led the protests at Standing Rock,” Cray said. “We do not just walk in and claim leadership on anybody’s fight, yet they’re kind of concocting this story as if we were orchestrating this, as if people couldn’t organize for themselves.”

What is Energy Transfer’s argument?

Meanwhile, Energy Transfer maintains that while the protests started peacefully, they escalated after Greenpeace arrived. The company claimed that Greenpeace representatives trained other demonstrators. The company alleged those demonstrators contributed to more aggressive protest tactics. The Energy Transfer’s legal team has previously accused Greenpeace of instigating what it describes as “acts of terrorism.”

“[Greenpeace] exploited a local community issue and a small, peaceful, and disorganized protest with no regard for the consequences for their own purposes,” Trey Cox, Energy Transfer’s lead attorney, said. “They didn’t think that there would ever be a day of reckoning, but that day of reckoning starts today.”

Energy Transfer also rejected Greenpeace’s argument of a First Amendment infringement, stating that the case is “not about free speech” but rather about Greenpeace allegedly engaging in unlawful conduct. The company claimed that Greenpeace falsely accused it of mismanaging the pipeline project and that these statements led eight banks to withdraw financing for the construction.

What happens next?

The trial is expected to last five weeks before moving to jury deliberations. Should the ruling be unfavorable to Greenpeace, the organization has indicated that it will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court if necessary.