Lawfare for thee
For years environmental groups have engaged in fairly explicit “lawfare” to try to get their way, or more often obstruct someone else’s, on issues where they could not persuade the public. So there’s a certain irony in Heatmap emailing (sorry, no link available) a special offer that starts with the complaint “The risks facing renewable energy have never been clearer – or more local.
A handful of opponents can not only block a wind or solar farm, they can endanger an entire industry. And in the current political environment, these opponents have never been more emboldened.” Oh yeah? Like the spotted owl shutting down so much forestry in the Pacific northwest? Or the snail darter in Tennessee that unleashed the Endangered Species Act? Or did you have in mind those New England offshore wind projects getting held up over a few lousy whales?
Well, there’s also the poetic justice of a North Dakota lawsuit between Greenpeace and an energy company where the latter is suing the former. Who are seeing red over it, and the New York Times predictably sympathizes with the activists in a lawsuit:
“which accuses the environmental group of masterminding protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline almost a decade ago. Greenpeace denies the allegations, calling them baseless, and says the $300 million lawsuit is an intimidation tactic aimed at bankrupting the organization and stifling protest groups more broadly. But the group and its allies also call the case a racist attempt to erase the story of the Native American activism that led to the huge protests around the Standing Rock Reservation.”
The news story basically tells Greenpeace’s side of the story, replete with native activists who were spontaneously wise and engaged without help from outside agitators. And it ends with a balanced declaration from a former young person protestor, now “an educator… and a graduate student in Indigenous language and pedagogy”, Montgomery Brown, who:
“sees a grave danger in the Greenpeace case: the risk of creating a precedent where any group present at a protest could be held responsible for everything that might happen there. ‘I feel like this fight is bigger than Greenpeace,’ he said. ‘It’s about protecting the free speech and democracy.’”
All the news that’s fit to spin. But it really does come down to whether, of all things, a huge environmental group famous for helping organize protests and protest stunts (Canada’s just-ex-environment minister climbing the CN Tower, for instance) and moving opportunistically when occasions arise did it this time and, if so, whether it crossed the line into encouraging illegal conduct. According to Brown:
“I guess when you have a purpose and you have a passion for something in your life, a lot of the doubts and the little voices in the back of your head, they don’t really account for much.”
Unless of course they were saying be careful about breaking the law. Were they? It’s not about democracy, free speech or race. It’s about the burden of proof in court. And sauce for the gander because it’s all fun and games until the target wins a case.
At which point Greenpeace whips out the victim card as the beleaguered little person. The Washington Times notes that:
“The environmental advocacy group has warned that it could go bust if a North Dakota jury rules in favor of Energy Transfer’s $300 million lawsuit. The lawsuit accuses Greenpeace entities of helping fund and train the activists who wreaked havoc on the pipeline’s construction in the name of protecting the environment. ‘While the money may not be important to Energy Transfer, a $300 million judgment would shut down Greenpeace USA,’ Charlie Cray, Greenpeace USA senior strategist, said in a video posted by the group called ‘Greenpeace on Trial.’”
The company isn’t taking it lying down. They stood up to the protests and got the project built. But it was a nasty business, including protest encampments at which “After the National Guard swept out the final stragglers in February 2017, crews found a dozen abandoned dogs and hauled off 21 million pounds of garbage in a $1.1 million cleanup.” Weird.
Moreover:
“Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, said Greenpeace raised millions of dollars off the protests based on what he described as ‘lies’ about the project, such as that the pipeline encroached on the Standing Rock reservation. The pipeline runs a half-mile from the boundary at its closest point. ‘They torched a lot of our equipment, costing us millions of dollars,’ Mr. Warren told CNBC in a July interview.
‘They attempted to cut holes in our pipeline. Think about that: Here’s the people that are saying we’re going to poison their water, and they’re trying to cut holes in our pipeline so that it will leak, and they can say, “Look what you did.”’ In addition, he said, the protest delayed construction by about 90 days, causing the company to miss a production deadline that cost it millions of dollars.”
Maybe. It’s still before the court, and juries sometimes do weird things. But if it’s true, and appears to be proven in court, it will be sauce for a particularly litigious gander.
Indeed CalMatters, “a nonpartisan and nonprofit news organization bringing Californians stories that probe, explain and explore solutions to quality of life issues while holding our leaders accountable”, asks:
“Who should pay billions for climate disasters? California and others target Big Oil – will that work?”
Their nonpartisan unbiased view is that it certainly should, good and hard:
“Big Oil faces mounting lawsuits as extreme weather worsens, with California leading efforts to make fossil fuel giants pay billions of dollars for the climate damage they have long denied.”
Of course technically you’d have to prove that extreme weather was worsening, which could be a challenge. And that oil companies caused it. And could reasonably have known. And a conspiracy theory about some random research a half-century ago won’t get it done… or maybe it will in a California court. As CalMatters rants on:
“Across the country, states, cities, tribes and environmental groups have filed dozens of lawsuits against oil companies alleging that they misled the public about the dangers of their products. These cases share a core argument: Oil companies knew fossil fuels were driving climate change and lied about it. California and other plaintiffs are recycling a legal strategy deployed during the 1990s, when states alleged that tobacco companies knew cigarettes cause cancer. Four large companies settled the cases by paying billions to fund states’ anti-smoking campaigns and other efforts. The manufacturers also must make annual payments to the states as long as they sell cigarettes in the United States. The settlement set a powerful precedent for using litigation to hold industries accountable for public harm caused by deceptive practices.”
Even this piece admits that “while the connection between climate change and fossil fuels has been clearly documented by scientists”, scientists no less:
“the evidence is less definitive linking fossil fuels to specific extreme weather events such as droughts or wildfires. And climate-warming greenhouse gases are global in scope and emitted by a variety of fossil fuels and other sources, not just gasoline and other products manufactured by the oil industry…. Still, climate liability efforts are gaining traction in some areas, especially in California, following January’s devastating wildfires in Los Angeles.”
Whose devastation was caused by inept progressive politicians not “climate change” in a region that’s always had wildfires, your honour. And just maybe it will come out in court, where we don’t encourage them to engage Michael Mann’s lawyers.
Oh, and Reuters “Sustainable Switch”, which like Heatmap can save the planet but not post a newsletter online, email-chortles about:
“the Supreme Court case that could be seen as a boon for climate activists. The justices declined to block lawsuits that accuse major oil companies of misleading the public about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, allowing these cases to proceed in state courts. Those companies include Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and BP. The litigation by the Democratic-led states – California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island – is seeking monetary damages and accuses the energy companies of creating a public nuisance or violating state laws by concealing the fact that burning fossil fuels would lead to climate change from the public for decades.
Ah. A conspiracy theory. Just what we need. Still, if you’re that keen on environmentalists suing oil companies, you do have to be ready for the shoe to switch feet or, lest the commentary switch metaphors, a big dollop of the sauce you’ve been pouring on others coming back at you.
See more here Climate Discussion
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.