Jury deliberates US pipeline case with free speech implications
A jury in North Dakota began deliberating Monday in a trial that has broad free speech implications, over a US oil pipeline operator's lawsuit seeking millions of dollars from Greenpeace for allegedly orchestrating a campaign of violence and defamation.
At the heart of the case is the Dakota Access Pipeline, where nearly a decade ago the Standing Rock Sioux tribe led one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. Hundreds were arrested and injured, prompting concerns from the United Nations over violations of Indigenous sovereignty.
The pipeline, which transports fracked crude oil to refineries and global markets, has been operational since 2017.
But its operator, Energy Transfer, has continued pursuing legal action against Greenpeace -- first in a federal lawsuit seeking $300 million, which was dismissed, and then in the three-week trial in a state court in Mandan, North Dakota.
Critics call the case a clear example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. Notably, North Dakota is among the minority of US states without anti-SLAPP protections.
In February, Greenpeace became the first group to test the European Union's anti-SLAPP directive by suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. The group is seeking damages with interest and demanding that Energy Transfer publish the court's findings on its website.
More than 400 organizations, along with public figures such as singer Billie Eilish and actors Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon have signed an open letter in support of Greenpeace, as have hundreds of thousands of individuals globally.
gh/bfm
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Sir John A. Macdonald statue back in view at Queen's Park after five years boarded up
TORONTO - The Sir John A. Macdonald statue outside the Ontario legislature is back in full view after spending the past five years in a box. The statue of Canada's first prime minister has been under hoarding since 2020, when it was vandalized with pink paint. The monument was one of many that were targeted across the country amid anti-racism protests and as Canadians grappled with the history of residential schools. Macdonald is considered an architect of the country's notorious residential school system, which took Indigenous children from their families in an effort to assimilate them. Progressive Conservative and Liberal members of a non-partisan board of the legislative assembly agreed earlier this month on a motion to remove the hoarding after the statue is cleaned. Speaker Donna Skelly says she recognizes the sensitivities surrounding Macdonald and welcomes Ontarians to come and share their views peacefully. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Major projects will be slowed by court challenges if rights are violated: B.C. chief
OTTAWA - The regional chief for British Columbia said Wednesday that governments should not speed up major projects at the expense of First Nations rights — and warned that projects will be slowed down by court challenges if First Nations are not consulted from the start. 'We're asking the government to follow your own laws,' Terry Teegee said, citing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the federal government adopted. The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney introduced major economic legislation last week. The bill has two parts — one to break down federal barriers to internal trade and the other to fast-track major projects. It sets out five criteria to determine whether a project is in the 'national interest.' Those criteria include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous Peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. But First Nations leaders say their interests weren't considered when the legislation was being drafted and they were given just one week to review and bring comments forward on a briefing document on the bill. 'It's probably going to take a lot longer to get approval for some of these projects because we're going to end up in court,' Teegee said. 'This is where we end up.' The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations agreed. 'It's not about the bill itself. It's about the process. And I think that ramming something through when you should be hearing from Canadians, from industry, from First Nations … is the wrong way to go,' Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'You don't want to end back up in court. You don't want to have civil unrest. Why not just invite us to the table?' First Nations leaders have warned that widespread protests and blockades are possible if governments don't obtain affected Indigenous communities' free, prior and informed consent, as required by the UN declaration. The federal government has said that declaration doesn't amount to a veto — a statement Justice Minister Sean Fraser walked back last week following criticism from Woodhouse Nepinak. Teegee said 'no government has a veto, meaning that when we come to a decision, all governments come into the room to make a decision together.' 'First Nations, certainly as a part of this, need to be part of the decision-making process,' he added. Even groups that generally support development are raising concerns about the federal government's plan. Mark Podlasly, CEO of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, said he was 'surprised' First Nations were only given seven days to review parts of the legislation before it was introduced. 'The answer will not automatically be 'no' from First Nations when a project comes along. It's just that Indigenous rights and involvement has to not only be included, but respected. That hasn't happened a lot in the Canadian past,' he said. 'There's also a question on the environment, and there's a question about who bears the impact of these projects if they're rushed through. It's going to be Indigenous Peoples, especially in parts of the country where there's mining or energy sources (on lands) that are integral to our lifestyle, our cultural practices.' Podlasly said that while the federal legislation 'seems to have Indigenous participation at its core,' it's not clear what that participation will look like, especially under the tight two-year approval timeline the government seeks. He said First Nations can support projects and many do — but they don't want to be 'caught at the back end' of decisions made without their knowledge or consent. 'We're all operating with seven days' notice. That's what we're operating with. And time will tell,' he said. The Assembly of First Nations is holding an emergency chiefs meeting on Monday to discuss what to do next. Woodhouse Nepinak vowed to follow their direction and said a legal review of the legislation is ongoing. 'We need time,' Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'And we're not being given that time.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Activists Zero In on Gas in Supermajor Court Attack
Activists are suing TotalEnergies for greenwashing. The supermajor's alleged crime: saying that natural gas is better for the environment than coal and oil. Normally, activists focus on oil when they attack the energy industry, but lately, they have shifted their attention to gas. The TotalEnergies case may be only the beginning of a new offensive. Less than a decade ago, natural gas was broadly accepted as what many called 'a bridge fuel' from the hydrocarbon era to the post-hydrocarbon era of low-emission energy. Gas was going to be around longer than coal and oil as it came to replace them to drive CO2 emissions down. Yet some activists spotted an inconsistency with that strategy. While it emits much less carbon dioxide, natural gas is mostly methane—and methane is a greenhouse gas in its own right. Also, it's more greenhouse-y than CO2, which activists like to point out, although it gets degraded in the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2. Perhaps the most notorious attack on natural gas was one study claiming that liquefied natural gas specifically was actually more harmful to the planet than coal. The study—although promptly debunked—led to the Biden administration imposing what it called a pause on new LNG export facility permits. President Trump removed the pause, but elsewhere, the offensive against natural gas continues. 'Total has deployed communication campaign on gas aimed at associating it with renewable energies, in an attempt to make it seem positive, clean, desirable energy and even a 'fantastic resource for decarbonisation'. This impression is, once again, seriously erroneous,' said Clementine Baldon, one of the attorneys representing a group of environmentalist outlets, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as quoted by the Financial Times this clients accuse TotalEnergies of misleading consumers with an information campaign during its rebranding from Total to TotalEnergies in 2021. The misleading consisted of TotalEnergies saying that it planned to achieve 'carbon neutrality with society', which was inconsistent, per the environmentalists, with its core business, which involved an expansion in oil and gas production—especially gas. The allegations rest on a collection of 44 pieces of corporate communication, including things like social media posts, corporate statements on TotalEnergies' websites, and advertising materials. TotalEnergies has countered the allegations frankly rather toothlessly, saying that 'It is false and artificial to accuse TotalEnergies of greenwashing . . . TotalEnergies has never said that [fossil fuels] are good for the climate.' The company also said a lot of the information referenced by the plaintiffs was not produced for the mass consumer, so consumer laws should not apply. In the past couple of years, supermajors began to strike back against the activists. Even TotalEnergies itself filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace for misleading information contained in a report claiming that TotalEnergies deliberately underestimated its carbon footprint. The court dismissed the case, prompting celebrations at Greenpeace, but TotalEnergies' move to sue signaled a change in the industry with regard to activists and their attacks on it. What this latest lawsuit shows is that these attacks are nowhere near done, which was only to be expected. Climate activists want all hydrocarbons to stay in the ground regardless of emission footprint. But because oil has been overused as a scarecrow, it is now the turn of natural gas, which is objectively cleaner, in terms of CO2 emissions and particulate material emissions, than coal and oil. Demand for natural gas is rising globally, many countries are trying to switch from coal to gas precisely because it is cleaner in terms of actual physical pollution. From the activists' perspective, this cannot be allowed to happen because gas is as much a hydrocarbon as is oil and as is coal. Cue the lawfare. In truth, if the activists win this case, the victory will be mostly symbolic. They could probably get the court to order TotalEnergies to add a tobacco-style warning to its promotional materials but they could not force it to stop its LNG developments around the world—because this world needs gas and the ones supplying this gas are the energy companies like TotalEnergies. In further truth, there is already a shift underway to reduce methane leaks along the natural gas supply chain. There are even certification providers that guarantee certain gas cargos are low-emission ones, and buyers are willing to pay a premium for them. Reducing methane leaks is more gas for sale, after all. The activists probably do not delude themselves into thinking a court order that can stop TotalEnergies advertising can also stop it from producing natural gas. They may think such an order would sap consumers' appetite for gas, but that would be asking for too much because there is a pretty simple reason why gas is and will continue to be in strong demand for decades to come. It is reliable, it is cheap, and it is abundant enough to remain both reliable and cheap for quite a long while. No amount of 'misleading commercial practices' lawsuits can change that. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on
