Greenpeace is facing serious accusations from Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The company claims that Greenpeace used harmful and misleading tactics to disrupt the pipeline’s progress. This legal battle has been ongoing, and a jury in North Dakota is now deliberating after a lengthy trial.
Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace, along with its U.S. and international branches, engaged in defamation, civil conspiracy, and other wrongful acts during protests against the pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, arguing that Greenpeace’s actions harmed its reputation and caused significant financial losses.
During the trial, Energy Transfer’s attorney, Trey Cox, accused Greenpeace of manipulating public sentiment and causing chaos. He claimed that Greenpeace paid protesters, organized training sessions for them, and provided tools for locking themselves to equipment. Cox stated that Greenpeace’s actions led to delays and financial losses for the company, including a $96 million hit to financing and an $80 million loss from not being able to start oil flow as planned.
Cox highlighted that the pipeline, which crosses the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation, has been transporting oil since mid-2017. The tribe has long opposed the project, fearing it could threaten their water supply. The protests against the pipeline gained national attention, becoming a focal point for environmental and indigenous rights activism.
In response, Greenpeace’s legal team argued that the organization had little involvement in the protests and that Energy Transfer failed to prove its claims. They pointed out that a letter signed by Greenpeace leaders, which included allegations about desecration of burial grounds, was just one of many such communications sent to banks involved in the project. Greenpeace’s attorneys insisted that the company could not link its financial struggles directly to their actions.
The case has drawn attention beyond the courtroom, with Greenpeace describing the lawsuit as a way for corporations to silence critics. They contend that this trial is crucial for protecting free speech and the rights to protest. Meanwhile, Energy Transfer maintains that the case is about holding Greenpeace accountable for breaking the law.
As the jury deliberates, the outcome could have significant implications for both the future of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the broader conversation about corporate accountability and environmental activism.