{"id":416857,"date":"2025-12-10T17:54:32","date_gmt":"2025-12-10T16:54:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=416857"},"modified":"2025-12-10T17:54:35","modified_gmt":"2025-12-10T16:54:35","slug":"greenpeace-asks-a-dutch-court-to-overturn-a-345-million-dakota-pipeline-judgement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=416857","title":{"rendered":"Greenpeace Asks a DUTCH Court to Overturn a $345 Million Dakota Pipeline Judgement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Protesters<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

h\/t ResourceGuy<\/a> \u2013 Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By  Michael Toth
Dec. 5, 2025 at 5:27 pm ET<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group\u2019s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. \u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026 During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer\u2019s CEO, didn\u2019t take those losses sitting down. \u201cWhat they did to us is wrong,\u201d he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, \u201cand they\u2019re going to pay for it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer\u2019s litigation violated Greenpeace International\u2019s rights under the European Union\u2019s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

\u2026Read more: https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/opinion\/greenpeace-asks-a-dutch-court-to-reverse-an-american-verdict-ec50b1e8?st=6ruYyM<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If Greenpeace stood by the roadside and waved a few banners I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to do so. But \u201c\u2026 shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers \u2026<\/em>\u201d goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greenpeace USA doesn\u2019t appear have enough assets to cover this fine (approx. $4.8 million US net assets in 2023 according to ProPublica<\/a>), so perhaps they are trying to cut their losses? Sacrifice the US branch, but shield the main parent organisation in the Netherlands from a fine which could devastate their finances? According to 2024 accounts, Greenpeace International has approx \u20ac90 million in assets<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any attempt to shield European organisations by overruling US court judgments for events which occurred in the USA could further damage trans-Atlantic relations. Relations are particularly strained right now, thanks to an EU attempt to $210 million fine against x \/ twitter<\/a>, over a dispute regarding the blue verified tick, not censoring free speech the way the EU wants, and not providing EU \u201cresearchers\u201d with full access to internal X company secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Did the European Union Just Try to Illegally Censor US Free Speech?<\/a><\/blockquote>