Latest news with #GreenpeaceInternational
Scoop
6 days ago
- General
- Scoop
French Authorities Block Greenpeace Ship From Participating In UN Ocean Conference
French authorities have blocked Greenpeace International's ship Arctic Sunrise from entering the port of Nice, where the "One Ocean Science Congress" and the UN Ocean Conference are being hosted. This was retaliation against Greenpeace France, highlighting the weaknesses of the French network of Marine Protected Areas last month in the Mediterranean Sea, in an expedition on board the Arctic Sunrise. Greenpeace International will write a formal letter of complaint to the United Nations, deploring the behaviour of the hosting French government. Civil society participation is a core element of the UN Ocean Conference. The presence of the Arctic Sunrise in Nice would coincide with the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret services in Auckland. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Ellie Hooper says, "It's ironic that so close to the 40th anniversary of the French Government's attempt to silence Greenpeace here in Auckland by bombing the Rainbow Warrior, the French Government is again trying to shut us down by blocking our ship from entering Nice." "But just like we were not silenced then, neither will we be silenced now. Climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat, and our work has never been more important." The Arctic Sunrise had been invited by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to participate in the "One Ocean Science Congress" and in the Ocean wonders parade taking place right before the UN Ocean Conference. Greenpeace International had intended to deliver the messages of three million people calling for a moratorium on deep sea mining to the politicians attending the conference. The ship's entry to Nice has now been blocked. Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International's Executive Director, says, "The French authorities' attempt to silence fair criticism ahead of this UN Ocean Conference is clearly a political decision and is utterly unacceptable. Greenpeace and our ships have been working peacefully to protect the oceans for decades. The Arctic Sunrise highlighted the failure of the French government to properly protect its Marine Protected Areas - where bottom trawling is still permitted - and now we are being punished. "France wants this to be a moment where they present themselves as saviours of the oceans, while they want to silence any criticism of their own failures in national waters. We will not be silenced. We believe the voices of the three million calling for a stop to deep sea mining must be heard in Nice. Greenpeace and the French government share the same objective to get a moratorium on deep sea mining, which makes the ban of the Arctic Sunrise from Nice even more absurd." Millions of people around the world have joined Greenpeace's campaign to stop deep sea mining from starting. In 2023, the Arctic Sunrise crew took action at sea to bear witness to the threat of the deep sea mining industry. They peacefully protested against The Metals Company, which had been publicly accused of "environmental piracy" by the French government a few weeks ago, given their attempt to bypass international law by requesting an exploitation permit through President Trump's administration. Right now, the Rainbow Warrior is in the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life there and will be in New Zealand to mark the anniversary of the bombing in Auckland on 10 July. Onboard photographer Fernando Pereira died in the attack, which came soon after Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace flagship had evacuated victims of American nuclear tests on Rongelap Atoll and was preparing to oppose French nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll. Following the first-ever deep sea mining licence application by The Metals Company to the United States, Greenpeace says that now is the time to resist and stop this industry from starting. This UN Ocean Conference will be a key moment to galvanise support ahead of the July meeting of the International Seabed Authority, the UN regulator.
DW
7 days ago
- Business
- DW
Will it take a treaty to phase out fossil fuels? – DW – 06/03/2025
As some countries roll back climate commitments, the head of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Kumi Naidoo is calling for a phase-out of coal, oil and gas production. Environmental justice leader Kumi Naidoo is urging the international community to support what is known as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative . Speaking in a recent interview with DW, Naidoo, who is president of the initiative and former head of Greenpeace International, says the treaty is key to getting countries to phase out the burning of oil, coal and gas. Naidoo notes that while the Paris Agreement is symbolically important, it is not legally binding and has suffered from widespread non-compliance. He highlights the 28 years it took for the words "fossil fuel" to get a mention in official documents emerging from the UN's annual climate conferences. The problem with burning fossil fuels For more than a century, coal, oil and gas have served as the backbone of the global economy, powering transport and industry, heating homes, providing electricity and serving as the raw material for plastics that have become ubiquitous in our daily lives. But the greenhouse gases released when fossil fuels are burned are making the world hotter and leading to increasing extreme weather events. Scientists say governments urgently need to phase outthese planet-heating energy sources and transition to cleaner alternatives.
Scoop
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Greenpeace Slams Deep Sea Mining Application As A ‘Total Disregard For International Law'
Greenpeace has slammed an announcement by The Metals Company to submit the first application to commercially mine the seabed. Greenpeace International Senior campaigner Louisa Casson said: "The first application to commercially mine the seabed will be remembered as an act of total disregard for international law and scientific consensus. "This unilateral US effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition. Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining. "Leaders will be meeting at the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in June where they must speak with one voice in support of a moratorium on this reckless industry." Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Juressa Lee said: "The disastrous effects of deep sea mining recognise no international borders in the ocean. This will be another case of short-term profits for a very few, from the Global North, with the Pacific bearing the destructive impacts for generations to come." The Metals Company announcement follows President Donald Trump's Executive Order fast-tracking deep sea mining in US and international waters, which Greenpeace says threatens Pacific sovereignty. Trump's action bypasses the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the regulatory body which protects the deep sea and decides whether deep sea mining can take place in international waters. Lee adds: "The Metals Company and Donald Trump are wilfully ignoring the rules-based international order and the science that deep sea mining will wreak havoc on the oceans. "Pacific Peoples have deep cultural ties to the ocean, and we regard 'home' as more ocean than land. Our ancestors were wayfarers and ocean custodians who have traversed the Pacific and protected our livelihoods for future generations. This is the Indigenous knowledge we should be led by, to safeguard our planet and our environment. Deep sea mining is not the answer to the green transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels - it's another false solution." Donald Trump's order follows negotiations in March at the ISA, at which governments refused to give wannabe miners The Metals Company a clear pathway to an approved mining application via the ISA. 32 countries around the world publicly support a moratorium on deep sea mining. Millions of people have spoken out against this dangerous emerging industry.
Gulf Insider
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Insider
Is Europe Still Fighting Lost Energy Wars?
The news came down like a thunderbolt. In a spectacular decision, the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, ordered the environmentalist organizations that comprise Greenpeace to pay $665 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The figure appears a monumental slap in the face to Greenpeace, which was sued by Energy Transfer for 'defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts,' following demonstrations against the pipeline project in 2016 and 2017. The North Dakota jury did not pull any punches. Greenpeace was declared liable; its methods illegal and its actions harmful. Greenpeace has already announced that it will appeal. Beyond the legal wrangling, this ruling raises the question: what if this case marks the start of a major transatlantic rift between an America defending its energy interests and a Europe mired in its green romanticism? Let us look at the facts. The Dakota Access Pipeline — a nearly 1,900-kilometer artery that carries crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken shale formation to Patoka, Illinois — has been the focus of much passion. As early as 2016, Sioux and Cheyenne Indian tribes, supported by an armada of activists, celebrities and organizations including Greenpeace, denounced the project as threatening sacred tribal lands as well as water resources. Tens of thousands of signatures poured in on petitions, and protests at the construction sites paralyzed the work — all costing Energy Transfer some $300 million in delays and extra costs. The anger often degenerated into outright violence and large-scale vandalism, much to the annoyance of local populations, who became fed up with these crusaders who had appeared from elsewhere. Faced with this chaos, President Donald J. Trump, freshly inaugurated in 2017, issued a presidential memorandum to speed up the project, while brushing aside what he called an 'incredibly cumbersome and horrific authorization process.' The pipeline became operational in May 2017. Energy Transfer nevertheless immediately decided to go on a legal offensive. According to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace had orchestrated the demonstrations, financed the disorder and spread lies about the pipeline. The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, agreed on March 19, 2025, and ruled that Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc. must pay combined damages of $665 million to Energy Transfer, a sum that sounds like a declaration of war on environmentalist NGOs. The days of omnipotence and de facto impunity for environmentalist NGOs were over. Greenpeace USA is now crying that it will be forced into bankruptcy. Really? With its network of donors — small, large and mega-large — the NGO should be able to bounce back. The signal is clear: in the United States, no one any longer jokes with those who hinder the economy and trample on the rights of others under the guise of idealism. Meanwhile, Europe is getting restless. Greenpeace International has invoked the European anti-SLAPP directive — an EU initiative to protect individuals, especially journalists and activists, from abusive lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) aimed at silencing criticism or public participation, by providing safeguards like early dismissal of unfounded claims and financial protections. The anti-SLAPP directive, adopted in April 2024 by a European Union always ready to support and finance the most extremist NGOs, concretely aims to immunize these organizations against legal proceedings. Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer under the anti-SLAPP directive in the Netherlands, in February 2025. Greenpeace related the incident to broader environmental concerns, according to its statement: 'Based in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International is citing Dutch law on torts and abuse of rights, as well as Chapter V of the EU Directive, adopted in 2024, which protects organisations based in the EU against SLAPPs outside the EU, and entitles them to compensation. The Directive, along with existing Dutch law, paves the way for GPI to pursue remedies against three entities in ET's corporate group… for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the SLAPP suits and related actions in the US. Greenpeace International sent Energy Transfer a Notice of Liability in July 2024, summoning it to withdraw its lawsuit in North Dakota and pay damages, or face legal action. Energy Transfer refused to do so.' Greenpeace would apparently like organizations such as itself to directly or indirectly cause hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, while preventing any court from intervening. The applicability of the EU anti-SLAPP directive to the judgment in question is doubtful, because: The anti-SLAPP directive in question has not yet entered into force in the Netherlands. It is first and foremost Greenpeace USA that has been found liable (for $400 million) for acts committed in the USA, while the EU's anti-SLAPP directive is solely related to cross-border disputes. According to Article 1 of the anti-SLAPP directive, it pertains to clearly baseless claims or exploitative legal actions in civil cases that have cross-border elements, targeting individuals or entities — known as SLAPP targets — due to their involvement in public participation. The requirement of 'cross-border implications' means that SLAPPs related solely to domestic cases are not covered by the directive. Greenpeace was found liable for activities that led to violence, not for having expressed its opinion. Incitement to violence is not an opinion, and the EU anti-SLAPP directive does not cover acts of violence. Its primary focus is on protecting individuals and entities engaged in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings in civil or commercial matters with cross-border implications. If judges in the Netherlands nevertheless find in favor of Greenpeace International, anything is possible: such a ruling would be another slap(p) in the face to the United States. Would the Trump administration let stand a new European encroachment on US sovereignty? It looks as if the EU, through this directive, once again is trying to dictate the law on American soil. Transatlantic tensions, already fuelled by trade disputes, issues of free speech, NATO funding and the war in Ukraine, would mount further. Beyond this legal duel, there is a clash of civilizations at play. On one side, Trump's America, driven by the mantra 'drill, baby, drill' and a newfound pride in fossil fuels. Shale oil and gas, abundant and cheap, have made America the world's leading producer of hydrocarbons. The US is seeing energy independence boosted by massive exports of liquefied natural gas. On the other side, a Europe stubbornly pursuing its Green Deal, a project as costly as it is illusory, sacrificing its competitiveness on the altar of environmentalist dogma. While in Europe, factories are closing, they are reopening in the United States. The contrast between pragmatism and ideology is striking. Click here to read more…
Japan Times
22-03-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
What the $660 million Greenpeace verdict means for U.S. activism
A North Dakota jury this week found Greenpeace liable for defamation, conspiracy and other claims over its participation in the Dakota Access pipeline protests that lasted from 2016 to 2017, awarding developer Energy Transfer $660 million in damages. Legal experts warn the decision could significantly deter other environmental groups from protesting oil and gas companies and their infrastructure around the U.S. "The potential for liability itself will have a chilling effect,' said Jennifer Safstrom, an assistant clinical law professor at Vanderbilt University. Josh Galperin, an associate law professor at Pace University, described the verdict as "unprecedented' and the amount of damages as "absolutely enormous.' As climate change has worsened, activists in the U.S. and across the globe have repeatedly taken to the streets, forests and waters to put their bodies in the way of active fossil fuel production and new developments. Energy Transfer's legal win shows that challenging protest groups in court can be successful — and it may inspire other companies to follow suit. "The verdict is an invitation to other companies to take similar actions against protestors,' said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Greenpeace announced it would appeal the verdict against its entities Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International. The environmental group did not respond to a request for comment, but Laura Handman, one of the lawyers on the case, said "this story is not over,' noting that Greenpeace International last month filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. "That Greenpeace has been held responsible for breaking the law is a win for all of us,' Texas-based Energy Transfer said. The company had argued that Greenpeace incited protests that cost it millions of dollars, maligned its reputation and hampered its ability to raise money from capital markets. Greenpeace and some legal scholars have described the suit as a type of legal maneuver known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Rules related to SLAPP suits vary state by state, but most have laws in place to protect activist organizations from large corporations pressuring them to back down. North Dakota is not one of those states, making it easier for Energy Transfer to have pursued the case against Greenpeace there. Legal experts emphasized the importance of advocacy groups making sure they understand the specific laws in the states where they are organizing. "For the environmental or nonprofit organizations supporting advocacy, it's really important that they understand their state laws and their rights when it comes to the organized actions and potential anti-SLAPP lawsuits,' said Caroline Chen, director of environmental justice at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. The Dakota Access pipeline protests started in April 2016, with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe setting up camp along the proposed route protesting its development and raising concerns about potential environmental impacts. Months of growing protests prompted President Barack Obama's administration to block the project in late 2016. But soon after U.S. President Donald Trump took office in 2017, he reversed the decision and the pipeline was completed that year. In the wake of the protests, North Dakota passed four laws between 2017 and 2019 increasing the penalties imposed on people who engage in various forms of civil disobedience, including those that specifically target oil and gas infrastructure. The oil and chemical industries, including Energy Transfer, lobbied for those laws. Since early 2019, 18 other states have also passed similar laws that create steep penalties for energy protestors, according to tracking by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.
