The energy industry is witnessing a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape environmental activism in the United States.
At the center of this clash is Kelcy Warren, the billionaire pipeline magnate behind Energy Transfer, who is taking on Greenpeace in a lawsuit that threatens the very existence of the environmental group’s U.S. affiliate.
This legal confrontation stems from the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project that became a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over fossil fuels.
In 2016, Greenpeace, alongside Native American tribal groups and thousands of activists, staged monthslong protests in North Dakota to block the pipeline’s construction. The demonstrations garnered international attention, with images of clashes between protesters and law enforcement making headlines around the world.
While Warren eventually completed the pipeline, he didn’t consider the matter settled. Known for his competitive nature, Warren has a history of viewing environmental activists as a serious threat to the oil and gas industry.
In a 2017 television interview, he stated, “Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people. But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re gonna pay for it.”
Now, Energy Transfer is suing Greenpeace for $300 million in damages. The lawsuit alleges that Greenpeace entities incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and its project.
The case is set to go to trial in February in a North Dakota state court, where both sides anticipate a jury that may be sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry.
The potential consequences of this lawsuit are significant. Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, described the lawsuit as “an existential threat” to the organization. If Energy Transfer wins, it could potentially bankrupt Greenpeace’s U.S. affiliate, dealing a severe blow to the environmental movement in the country.
TRENDING: Over 90 Business Leaders Publicly Endorse Kamala Harris on Economic Policy
Greenpeace, for its part, maintains that it played only a limited role in the protests, which it says were primarily organized by Native American groups. The organization denies any involvement in property destruction or violence.
Additionally, Greenpeace launched a social media campaign claiming Energy Transfer is attacking their right to free speech.
In a video posted on X, Montgomery Brown, a Standing Rock Activist, stated, “This is about our fundamental first amendment rights and those rights are under attack.”
His words are followed by Charlie Cray, Senior Strategist for Greenpeace USA claiming, “Let’s be clear, this type of lawsuit is not about the money… what’s at stake isn’t even Greenpeace or environmentalism but the fundamental right to freedom of expression.”
We’re being sued by Big Oil @EnergyTransfer for $300 million. It’s an abusive lawsuit designed to end Greenpeace’s 50-year legacy of environmental activism. But it’s not just a threat to our existence. Learn more: pic.twitter.com/YrtObvuVKm
— Greenpeace USA (@greenpeaceusa) August 1, 2024
In response to the Greenpeace claims, Energy Transfer responded in a letter stating, “Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law.”
“We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that,” the letter continued. “Beyond that we will let our case speak for itself in February.”
This case has caught the attention of lawmakers and industry observers alike. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) voiced concern, stating, “Energy Transfer’s $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace shows how megacorporations deploy legal strategies to strong-arm and crush their critics.”
The lawsuit has also caused internal turmoil within Greenpeace USA. The organization is preparing contingency plans for various scenarios, including the possibility of bankruptcy. There have been reported clashes between the group’s leadership and board over what would constitute an acceptable settlement with Energy Transfer.
For Warren, who has a net worth of over $7 billion, this lawsuit represents more than just a legal battle. It’s a statement about his willingness to confront critics of the fossil fuel industry who use their platform unlawfully head-on.
Matthew Ramsey, a director on Energy Transfer’s board, told the Wall Street Journal: “You’re not going to wear Kelcy Warren out, I can promise you that. He will fight to the bitter end.”
As the trial date approaches, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for both the energy industry and environmental activism in the United States.
