SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
climate movement
The Verdict Against Greenpeace Is an Attack on Us All
It is critical for Greenpeace and its allies to lean into the verdict and issue a call to action to the entire environmental movement and broader civil society organizations.
Mar 26, 2025
The stunning jury verdict in North Dakota of a $667 million judgement against Greenpeace is a direct attack on the climate movement, Indigenous peoples, and the First Amendment. This case is so deeply flawed—at core the trial was about crushing dissent—that I believe there is a good chance it will be reversed on appeal and ultimately backfire against the Energy Transfer pipeline company.
I was part of an independent trial monitoring team of nine attorneys and four prominent human rights advocates that sat through every minute of the three-week trial, held in a nondescript courthouse in rural North Dakota. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace for alleged damages it claimed derived from the historic Indigenous-led Standing Rock protests in 2016 against the Dakota Access pipeline. Our presence in court was essential given that the company was able to shroud the trial in secrecy. There was no court reporter, and there still is no public transcript or recording of the proceedings.
What we observed was shocking. Greenpeace lost the trial not because it did something wrong, but because it was denied a fair trial.
If the theory of the case stands, pretty much anyone in the United States can face ruin for exercising their constitutional right to speak on an issue of public importance—even adherents of conservative causes.
The legendary human rights attorney Marty Garbus, a member of our team who has practiced law for more than six decades and who represented Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel, said it was the most unfair trial he had ever witnessed. This is precisely why many of us on the monitoring team believe there is a good chance Greenpeace will not pay the first dollar of the judgement and might actually recoup significant damages from EnergyTransfer in a separate case in Europe. That case, currently being heard in Dutch courts, would entitle Greenpeace to compensation based on a finding that the North Dakota case is an illegitimate attempt to squelch free speech.
This case against Greenpeace is widely regarded by legal observers and First Amendment scholars as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) harassment lawsuit. SLAPPs are designed not to resolve legitimate legal claims but to use courts to intimidate, silence, and even bankrupt an adversary. SLAPP suits by their very nature violate the U.S. Constitution because they trespass on the First Amendment right to speech. Allowing these cases to proceed almost always saddles the target with backbreaking legal expenses that can silence even the most resilient leaders and organizations.
This clearly was Energy Transfer’s plan for Greenpeace, but the case was never just about Greenpeace. It was about using Greenpeace as a proxy to attack the Standing Rock Sioux’s autonomy, leadership, and sovereignty as well as the broader climate justice movement, which is trying mightily to transition our country to a clean energy economy. The protests and the climate movement’s goals are a direct threat to Energy Transfer’s business model.
That might explain why Kelcy Warren, the founder and CEO of Energy Transfer, said the main purpose of the lawsuit against Greenpeace was to “send a message” rather than to collect money. A major Trump supporter and the mastermind of the lawsuit, Warren once gave an interview in which he said activists “should be removed from the gene pool.” After he made a major contribution to Donald Trump’s inaugural committee in 2017, the Trump administration quickly approved a key easement for the North Dakota pipeline that had been denied by former President Barack Obama.
The case against Greenpeace in North Dakota had all the telltale signs of an illegitimate SLAPP—so much so that it was originally thrown out of federal court in 2019. In that case, Energy Transfer openly claimed Greenpeace had engaged in a racketeering conspiracy and “terrorism,” by speaking out against the pipeline and by doing training at the site in nonviolent direct action. The company quickly refiled the case days later in the more friendly confines of state court. Literally every single judge in the judicial district where it was filed recused themselves because of conflicts of interest.
Here are some of the more fundamental problems we observed that clearly violated the fair trial rights of Greenpeace:
- The jury—the most sacred due process protection available to a defendant—was patently biased in favor of the company. Seven of the 11 people seated had ties to the fossil fuel industry. Some had admitted they could not be fair, but the judge seated them anyway. There was no Native American or person of color on the jury even though issues of Indigenous rights were central to the trial.
- Morton County, where the trial was held and where many of the protests took place, voted 75% for Donald Trump in the last election and has extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry. In a pre-trial survey, 97% of residents in the county said they could not be fair to Greenpeace. Yet the judge refused repeated requests by Greenpeace to move the case.
- Energy Transfer ran a major television and online advertising campaign in the county lauding itself in the weeks leading up to the trial. The company also sent a fake newspaper (called the Central North Dakota News) with pro-industry propaganda to households in the county. The court refused to allow Greenpeace to take discovery to determine how this unethical campaign to taint the jury pool happened.
- Adding to the absurdity, Greenpeace was blamed for the entire protest movement even though it played only a minimal role. The protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on whose ancestral land the Dakota Access pipeline was being built. In fact, only 6 of the 100,000 people who came to the protests were from Greenpeace—yet Energy Transfer was able to convince the jury to hold the organization responsible for every dollar of supposed damages that occurred over seven months of protests.
- Secrecy pervaded the proceedings. The court repeatedly refused to open a livestream to the public or to create and release transcripts. A request by media organizations (including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times) to access the livestream was denied. Thousands of key documents were sealed and thus hidden from public scrutiny.
- The judge, James Gion, made evidentiary decisions that systematically gutted Greenpeace’s ability to mount a defense. For example, a major expert report showed that the pipeline had leaked roughly 1 million gallons of drilling fluids into drinking water sources used by millions of people. Greenpeace lawyers needed the document to debunk the argument that the pipeline was safe, but the judge refused to let them use it.
- The 35-page verdict form was confusing, and the results seemed to prove the jury was in fact confused. It appears the exorbitant damages number was calculated by pulling numbers out of thin air—including millions for public relations expenses, private security costs which were being paid anyway, and refinancing costs due to various banks withdrawing from the project once they learned about the protests. (Lobbying banks is also constitutionally protected advocacy.)
The inability of Judge Gion to manage the case such that Greenpeace’s fair trial rights were respected was evident. It was almost excruciating to watch. It felt more like a choreographed show than an adversarial proceeding. Greenpeace was consistently—and in our opinion, falsely—portrayed by Energy Transfer lawyer Trey Cox as a criminal enterprise that exploited Indigenous peoples for its own gain. He used words like “mafia” and “coded language” to describe the group’s operations. (Cox works for the same law firm Chevron used to orchestrate my 993-day detention after I helped Amazon communities win the $10 billion Ecuador pollution case.)
The verdict represents more than a financial blow against Greenpeace. It has huge and very troubling implications for free speech across the nation. The result threatens the rights of religious groups and political organizations. It implicates the rights of churches and charities. If the theory of the case stands, pretty much anyone in the United States can face ruin for exercising their constitutional right to speak on an issue of public importance—even adherents of conservative causes. It’s really a corporate playbook that started with Chevron’s legal attacks on me and the Amazon communities in 2009, and continues with the assault on Greenpeace. It’s being carried out by the same law firm (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher) that markets the playbook to its corporate clients.
This case also highlights the Trump administration’s broader attack on progressive activism. From proposed legislation that would allow the Treasury Department to unilaterally revoke the nonprofit status of organizations deemed "terrorism-supporting" to the FBI’s reported plans to criminally prosecute climate groups, the goal is clear: suppress dissent. Greenpeace is in the crosshairs because its brand is global and its success in fighting polluters over the last several decades is outstanding.
This is why it is critical for Greenpeace and its allies to lean into the verdict and issue a call to action to the entire environmental movement and broader civil society organizations. Greenpeace is without question the world’s largest environmental activist group with chapters in 25 countries. It gave birth to the non-Indigenous part of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s and captured the imagination of the world by engaging in spectacular and creative actions to save whales in the North Pacific and to stop nuclear testing. Greenpeace needs to be protected in this critical moment.
There is more than a glimmer of hope. A hearing is scheduled for July in Amsterdam on the Greenpeace lawsuit against Energy Transfer. If Greenpeace prevails on appeal in North Dakota and wins in Europe, it might be Energy Transfer paying substantial sums to Greenpeace rather than the other way around. This judgement is not nearly as dismal as many in the media are making it appear.
There are realistic scenarios where Greenpeace emerges from this experience strongerthan ever. The key is to keep grinding and calling out this abuse loudly and publicly. The world will respond.
This piece was also published on Steven Donziger’s Substack.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Time for Philanthropists to Get Into Climate Emergency Mode
It’s time to spend aggressively. With the world on fire, the greatest risk, by far, is for philanthropy to move too slowly and too timidly.
Sep 10, 2024
As a clinical psychologist turned climate activist and now a funder of disruptive climate protests, I have witnessed the profound disconnect between the urgency of our climate crisis and the tepid, cautious response of the philanthropic sector. It brings me close to despair, as I know that incrementalism or philanthropy-as-usual can’t possibly be effective at protecting humanity.
The public is in a mass delusion of normalcy — sleepwalking off a cliff — and philanthropy is complicit. Philanthropy has treated the climate as one problem among many that should be dealt with in a “business as usual” way, including all of the philanthropic sector’s incrementalism and caution.
This is entirely the wrong approach. What’s needed is for philanthropy to treat the climate emergency like the crisis it is. There’s a recent precedent for this: In 2020, as COVID ravaged populations worldwide and governments seemed unable to attack the problem, the largest foundations marshaled their resources and quickly poured an estimated $10 billion into the development, testing and deployment of new vaccines. Their efforts saved millions of lives.
Unfortunately for all of us, the climate is an order of magnitude more dangerous than COVID. It’s time to spend aggressively. What good is an endowment if Copenhagen, New York City and Seattle are under water and Silicon Valley is burned to a cinder by perpetual wildfires? Foundations need to recognize that their missions — whether in medical research, education, or social justice — are all threatened by the climate emergency. There will be no hospitals, schools or social services on a dead planet.
There will be no hospitals, schools, or social services on a dead planet.
In order to meet the moment, foundations must engage in organization-wide reckonings, learning together about the scale and urgency of the climate emergency — and the fact that traditional philanthropy has thus far not been able to reduce emissions globally. Foundations should ask, given the acute nature of the crisis, what are the ways they should depart from their usual “philanthropy as normal” mode, and get out of our comfort zone.
Philanthropies must reassess their grantmaking strategies and priorities in light of the apocalyptic nature of the climate emergency. Particularly, they should re-evaluate their approaches to risk, efficacy and conflict. The greatest risk, by far, is for philanthropy to move too slowly and too timidly. Continuing down our current path will lead to horrific outcomes. To be prudent, we must be bold. That means making big bets on new groups and new people.
Philanthropies must also not be afraid of conflict — and be explicit about the need to fight and end the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians who support it. The Carmack Collective and Equation Campaign have both done this, shaping their missions to fight fossil fuels.
Foundations should interrogate and explore with an open mind what is the highest leverage, fastest, most effective way that they can use their resources to respond to the climate emergency. One way I advise funders to think about this is by asking: Who, ultimately, will cover the cost of the transition to zero emissions, which will need to be on the scale of World War II? Is it philanthropy? Of course not. Only governments have the kind of spending power — and legislative power — that we need. Philanthropy, with its significant resources and influence, has the potential to shake the public awake and spur the government to this necessary mobilization, but not to execute such a mobilization itself.
Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster.
How can philanthropy help create a society-wide mobilization? There is only one way: Funding social movements.
Throughout history, transformative change has come about through movements and social revolutions. From the civil rights movement to the women’s movement to ACT UP and the gay rights movement, authentic people-led movements drew attention to the cause, drastically moved public opinion, and forced governments to change, adapt and respond.
Philanthropies should shift from funding large legacy, incremental environmental organizations that have demonstrated an inability to act on the speed and scale necessary, to younger, dynamic groups that leverage effective tactics, crisis communications efforts and disruptive activism.
Supporting disruptive protests may be one of the most cost-effective strategies for addressing the climate crisis. A 2021 analysis by Giving Green revealed that each dollar invested in protest activities could reduce emissions by six metric tons of carbon, due to its influence on legislative outcomes. Additionally, a study published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review found that donations to organizations like Extinction Rebellion or the Sunrise Movement are six to 12 times more impactful than contributions to top-rated climate charities.
One reason is that nonviolent disruptive actions achieve media coverage at a rate no other initiatives can match. Climate Emergency Fund’s disruptive grantees were featured in over 75,000 articles in 2022 and 2023 worldwide. The disruptive activists we support are forcing a reluctant media to cover their actions, whether halting national sporting events, shutting down private airports or disrupting political speeches. These activists embody the emergency mentality. With their actions, they demonstrate the degree of their alarm and the seriousness of the crisis.
And yet these approaches are seriously underfunded. Philanthropic funding for climate change represents only about 1.5 percent of total philanthropic contributions. Within this small portion, the amount allocated to grassroots climate activism is so minimal that it isn’t even recognized as a distinct grant-making category in the ClimateWorks Foundation’s 2022 report on climate philanthropy.
The Carmack Collective, Equation Campaign and the Climate Emergency Fund, where I am the executive director, are three groups supporting people-led organizations fighting the fossil fuel industry. The larger JPB Foundation and the Sequoia Foundation have also demonstrated commendable efforts in funding people-powered movements and aggressive climate action. These organizations exemplify the kind of leadership needed.
Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster. The time for half-measures, white papers and panel discussions is over. Philanthropy must act now, boldly and decisively, to help save our planet for future generations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why I March: The Importance of Climate Movement Unity
This push to end the reign of fossil fuels has allowed the climate movement to act as one giant machine in a burst of collective action.
Sep 17, 2023
The following is part of a series of opinion pieces Common Dreams is publishing in the lead-up to the March to End Fossil Fuels on Sunday, September 17 in New York City. Read the rest of the series and our complete coverage here.
It had never struck me until recently how many environmental activist groups there are. Within the U.S. alone, there are around 28,000 different environmental groups currently operating, from small grassroots organizations to giants of the climate movement like 350.org, Greenpeace, and Sunrise. Among these groups, there is also a huge array of sometimes conflicting opinions that reflect the sense of uncertainty that often goes hand in hand with the fight against climate change.
As someone who would consider himself an environmentalist, the sheer amount of people, groups, and perspectives that circulate around the matter of climate change can make it feel like I am not part of a movement with a coherent goal, but rather a highly competitive sector of an “activism industry.” As climate change bears down upon us, the environmental movement needs to fight as one. People uniting as one to drive world leaders forward is essential to stopping climate change; it is also what makes the March to End Fossil Fuels special.
Anybody who follows a climate-related Instagram account probably knows that today, September 17, the March to End Fossil Fuels is taking place in the middle of New York City in order to persuade the Biden Administration and the U.N. to initiate phaseout plans for fossil fuels. This is for good reason; the event is the biggest climate protest that has occurred since the pandemic, with a turnout goal of over 50,000 people.
When the decision-making power required to save the planet from climate change lies in the hands of very few people, the only way forward is with the strength of overwhelming numbers.
The protest is an impressive display of unity within the climate movement when taken in a vacuum. It was organized as a joint effort by a variety of New York grassroots organizations as well as larger U.S.-based coalitions such as People vs. Fossil Fuels. The planning team for the march spans generations and regions, drawing in all manner of people. What is perhaps more impressive is that the actions taking place during the week of the march are not limited to New York alone. There will be over 400 different actions taking place around the same few days across the world. This push to end the reign of fossil fuels has allowed the climate movement to act as one giant machine in a burst of collective action.
I became involved in environmental causes because I wanted to be a part of something greater than myself. Frightened by the future that might come to pass if climate change ran its course, I started joining climate lobbying groups when I started high school in the hopes that I would be helping bring a larger movement forward. In the time since then, I haven’t necessarily found this to be the case. In fact, I have noticed that there is a surprising amount of discord between climate advocacy groups, to the extent that people often refuse potentially advantageous collaboration on the basis of minor differences in opinion or specialization. I find that the refusal of many environmentalists to work with people who do not share their exact beliefs to run contrary to the need for collaboration that is so necessary to stop the climate crisis. As such, I am overjoyed to see people coming together on a scale like that of the march in order to fight the fossil fuel industry.
The climate movement has been shaped by the sluggishness and weakness of world leaders in responding to its concerns. When the decision-making power required to save the planet from climate change lies in the hands of very few people, the only way forward is with the strength of overwhelming numbers. This is not something that the climate movement can achieve as a group of independent actors; to stop climate change, everyone must move together as they are doing now.
The necessity of collective action in relation to climate change does not stop when the March to End Fossil Fuels and its companion actions end. In the aftermath of the event, there will inevitably be considerable momentum left over; people will be angrier than ever at how world leaders and global capitalism aid and abet the destruction of the planet. My hope for the activist community surrounding climate change is that this momentum is used to keep people together to push for newer, bolder action. Coalitions like the one that planned the March to End Fossil Fuels are powerful political tools that could potentially be used to even greater effect in relation to specific issues such as climate education, regenerative agriculture, or corporate accountability.
Climate change has many facets, all of which need to be brought into the light for the crisis to be solved. The climate movement has proven on many occasions that it has the ability to unify around a cause, and, as the climate crisis gets worse and worse, it must continue to do so. The March to End Fossil Fuels is a call for people to unite against the biggest threat to our planet that we as a species have faced, and it is one that I suggest we all answer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular