By Anders Lorenzen
On Wednesday, the global climate activist group Greenpeace faced the consequence of its US office having to close down.
The Amsterdam-headquartered organisation, which has nonviolent direct action protests at the core of its DNA, has been handed a disproportionately high bill that it cannot foot.
Court ruling overview
A court in oil-rich North Dakota found on Thursday that Greenpeace, which relies on independent founders to run its operations, must pay the pipeline and energy company First Transfer $667 million in damages for the pipeline protests in Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) between 2016 and 2017.
The North Dakota State Court verdict came after the jury deliberated for two days.
Greenpeace and its allies have raised concerns about the trial’s fairness due to the state’s objective, and the Guardian reported in February that the selected jury did not represent diverse views.
“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.” – Greenpeace International Executive Director, Mads Christensen
Facts about Bakken Shale basin and Dakota Access Pipeline
Despite the protests, the construction of DAPL began in 2016 and was completed in 2017. The pipeline transports 40% of the oil produced in the Bakken Shale basin in North Dakota.
Dakota Access Pipeline
On average, it transports 450,000 to 500,000 barrels per day (BPD) and roughly 160–180 million barrels per year of crude oil from the Bakken region to refineries and export terminals.
Since its operation, DAPL has transported roughly 1.1 billion barrels.
While the emissions footprint of just transporting the oil is relatively low, transporting oil via pipelines has a far lower carbon footprint than using trucks and rail.
The emissions per barrel of transport is between 0.1 kg CO₂e/bbl – 0.2 kg CO₂e/bbl.
This results in an average annual emissions between 16,400 metric tons CO₂e – 32,800 metric tons CO₂e.
DAPL has an average all-time emissions of 131,400 metric tons CO₂e – 262,800 metric tons CO₂e.
Bakken Shale
To get an insight into the total lifecycle emissions, we need to look at Bakken Shale in detail.
The basin produced an average of 1 – 1.3 BPD or 400-500 million barrels annually. This does not consider the other fossil fuels also made in the Bakken Basin, such as significant volumes of natural gas (and associated liquids).
The emissions are significantly higher in the total lifecycle from extraction & production, flaring and methane, transportation, refining, and combustion.
Per barrel, this amounts to between 430 kg CO₂e – 500 kg CO₂e – amounting to annual emissions of 197 million metric tons CO₂e.
In context, this is equivalent to the annual emissions of around 43 million passenger cars, or half the annual emissions of the UK.
Background
The lawsuit came about because Energy Transfer had accused Greenpeace of unlawfully paying protesters to disrupt the pipeline’s construction and spreading falsehoods about the project, which had become increasingly controversial.
Timeline of events
Energy Transfer: A fair and resounding verdict
Energy Transfer’s lawyer Trey Cox said about the ruling, “Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace’s actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards.”
Greenpeace denies any wrongdoings
Greenpeace offered support for the Indigenous community at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The community had been overwhelmed as they fought against their land’s giant energy infrastructure project.
The court justified the ruling as damages for defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy. The jury had awarded more than $400 million in punitive damages.
Greenpeace says their role was simply to support the community in standing up to Energy Transfer.
They have denied any wrongdoing and called the case an attack on free speech rights, with its lawyers saying they’re appealing the verdict.
Greenpeace: We engage in peaceful protests
Regarding the ruling, Greenpeace attorney Deepa Padmanabha asserted that the group only played a minor role in the demonstrations, saying, “We’re an advocacy group. We engage in peaceful protest.”
Several local tribal and environmental advocacy groups, aided by Greenpeace, took part in the protests, arguing that the project would poison the local water supply and exacerbate climate change.
Future developments
Greenpeace’s appeal has resulted in the lawsuit being heard in the US Supreme Court.
If the ruling from the North Dakota State Court is upheld, Greenpeace, which has offices in 55 countries around the world, will have to close down its US office unless a significant donor bails it out.
However, a possible scenario is that the much larger Canadian office, which coincidently was also the birthplace of Greenpeace, would take over many of the US office’s campaigns.
Defiant message
But the spirit within Greenpeace is one of defiance.
Its International Executive Director, Mads Christensen, declared: “We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet.
You can’t silence us
The Dane, who previously was heading up its Nordic division, added:
“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now, along with its allies, wants to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
Not yet connected to the Trump Administration
While the Greenpeace executive said that this was an effort by the Trump Administration to silence the organisation and the right to free protests, this was a state judgment in a state heavily influenced by the oil industry.
If the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, one could draw a more national and government agenda. Until then, all eyes are on the highest US court.
It is unknown when the Supreme Court will hear the Greenpeace case.
Discover more from A greener life, a greener world
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
