Greenpeace complains lawsuit unjust, but critics say the organization is getting its just desserts

Greenpeace is facing a lawsuit from Energy Transfer, a petroleum pipeline company, over the environmental group’s involvement in the violent 2016 protests of a pipeline in North Dakota. Critics of the organization say it’s getting a dose of its own medicine.

The case is an outlier in the world of environmental litigation. Usually, energy companies are on the defensive against an extensive wave of lawsuits — often called lawfare — from environmental and climate activist groups like Greenpeace. 

Environmental groups regularly use the courts to stop, or at least delay, energy projects, and suits blaming oil companies for climate change seek billions of dollars from oil companies. 

But Energy Transfer LP is going on the offensive. Greenpeace and its hundreds of well-funded allies are framing the lawsuit as an attack on their First Amendment rights.

“This could have a chilling effect on anyone engaged in peaceful protest and assembly,” an open letter to the company stated. The letter was signed by 290 anti-fossil fuel organizations.

The letter denies the lawsuit’s allegation that Greenpeace orchestrated the entire protest, and the organization has consistently said it didn’t engage in any property destruction or violence. Greenpeace also argues the lawsuit is racist against Native Americans and imposes collective liability for anything that happens at protests.

Greenpeace critics, however, say that an organization like Greenpeace that regularly weaponizes the courts to advance its agenda shouldn’t act so indignant when it faces legal action from the companies it targets.

“They really deserve what they're getting,” Tom Shepstone, an energy expert who publishes "Energy Security and Freedom" on Substack, told Just the News.

Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, said that Greenpeace is being hypocritical with its reaction to the suit.

“In Greenpeace’s case, they have used lawfare for 30 years to bankrupt small businesses and bust the budgets of local and state governments. It’s not a case of free speech. You already said what you wanted to say. Your actions have legal consequences, except you may have to pay instead of someone else,” Stewart said in an interview.

Fiery but peaceful

Whatever Greenpeace’s involvement in coordinating the actions of the protesters, the violent tactics during the campaign to stop the North Dakota Access Pipeline are well documented.

While these environmental groups consider it unjust that they would be sued over what they say are peaceful, lawful protests, Greenpeace is one of many environmental groups who regularly file vexatious lawsuits against oil companies that legally produce products that consumers across the world willingly purchase, and would say need.

“Decades ago a major shift took place for the ‘Big Green’ business model. We witnessed the end of organized Saturday park clean-ups and a shift to expensive legal activism backed by well-coordinated and paid mass demonstrations,” the U.S. Oil and Gas Association's Stewart said.

Energy Transfer originally filed the lawsuit in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. A federal judge dismissed that suit, so the company filed a new one in North Dakota state court, which alleges trespass, destruction of property, and aiding and abetting the unlawful acts. 

North Dakota is the third largest producer of oil in the U.S., and its Bakken shale fields in the western part of the state was prime ground for what’s called the "Shale Revolution." The combination of the technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing lifted the U.S. into the top energy-producer in the world, and North Dakota’s oil boom from 2008 through 2014 allowed the state to skip the Great Recession altogether.

When the protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline erupted in 2016, it brought the frenzy of the anti-fossil fuel movement to the state, something to which the highly rural communities of North Dakota weren’t accustomed. Along with the protests came global attention. It’s unlikely that Greenpeace will receive a symapthetic jury in the state of North Dakota.

Energy Transfer’s complaint also names Charles Brown, Cody Hall, Krystal Two Bulls, and Red Warrior Society. It asks “for actual, consequential, special, and restitution damages in an amount to be proven at trial,” but the federal lawsuit seeks $300 million in damages. Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, told the Wall Street Journal that the lawsuit is an “existential threat” to the group.

Big Green

Greenpeace didn’t respond to requests for comment on this story, but in a statement emailed to Just the News, Energy Transfer said the purpose of the suit is not to trample on anyone’s civil rights. A statement from Greenpeace said "Put quite simply, the current lawsuit accuses Greenpeace of things we did not do and attempts to criminalize ordinary public advocacy. A bad ruling in this case could have dire repercussions for anyone who attends a protest or who dares to speak up and criticize a powerful, deep-pocketed corporation."

Energy Transfer argues otherwise. “Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that. Beyond that, we will let our case speak for itself in February,” the company said.

The U.S. Oil and Gas Association's Stewart  said that environmental groups have legal budgets that “match that of a medium-sized corporation.” These budgets are supplemented by the “sue and settle” tactic. The environmental group sues, he said, and the federal government settles. In turn, the settlement pays legal fees to environmental groups for suing the federal agencies.

“It’s a reliable revenue stream for Big Green,” he said.

Shepstone disputed the defendants’ contention that the right to peaceful protest is being undermined by the lawsuit. “These people engaged in what was really an organized domestic terrorist enterprise. That's my view,” Shepstone said.

Anti-SLAPP

North Dakota does not have an anti-SLAPP law, which are state laws that provide a means for defendants in libel lawsuits based on a matter of public concern to have cases dismissed at an early stage. In some cases the plaintiffs in libel suits who lose anti-SLAPP suits can be made to repay legal expenses of the defendants. This means that win or lose, Greenpeace will be on the hook for their legal expenses. 

Greenpeace International sent a letter in July to Energy Transfer, warning it that the group will pursue anti-SLAPP action in European courts and demanding the company withdraw its lawsuit. 

"The lawsuits against GPI [Greenpeace International] have resulted in significant costs for GPI, including costs for legal representation, and damage to its reputation as a result of ET’s [Energy Transfer] serious and entirely unfounded public accusations," the letter states. 

On its blog, Energy Transfer responded to the letter, arguing that the letter demonstrates that, contrary to Greenpeace's claim it's being silenced, it's exercising free speech without limitation. It also accuses Greenpeace of trying to "sidestep the consequences of its own illegal actions." The company said it would not withdraw the suit. 

"Energy Transfer believes in the meritorious nature of the U.S. Lawsuit, including those claims brought against GPI, and intends to diligently pursue just adjudication of those claims in the North Dakota state court," Energy Transfer's response said. 

The Journal article notes that some oil and gas investors are concerned that the lawsuit will appear vindictive and galvanize anti-fossil fuel activists. In a piece on his Substack, Shepstone argues that the industry has far too long capitulated to the activists, which is becoming costly.

“Fear of invigorating the opposition misses the point; that the enemy never sees any loss as an obstacle. It realizes repeated battles ad infinitum eventually wear us down and advance the cause of future total victory. It’s a battle to the death for the left and Energy Transfer has wisely joined that battle rather than run away. This is exactly what needs to happen,” Shepstone wrote.