Odoyyoxigoyxc
5503
217
6
Greenpeace ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages to oil firm
Source: BBC
https://search.app/CYSSq
Shared via the Google App
Mar 19, 2025 9:55 PM
Odoyyoxigoyxc
5503
217
6
Greenpeace ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages to oil firm
Source: BBC
https://search.app/CYSSq
Shared via the Google App
OliverOtter
Yup, awful, horrible America, holding a trial where the results didn't turn out favorably to a criminal organization. Remember when France snuck a bunch of military agents and limpet mines into New Zealand, and used them to bomb and sink Greenpeace's flagship, killing a photographer and blasting a number of her crew off the deck and into the water? Yup, only America ever does bad things to an organization like Greenpeace.
Iaimtomisbehave
This is fucking bullshit!
EroticZombiePants
I completely assumed it was an American decision, and I was completely right.
Domoftheloft
Well if Trump and co don’t need to follow legal rulings I don’t see why Greenpeace should. Two can play at being disrupters of the system.
IHateItH3r3
Republicans don't pay, so why should anyone else?
RedSkizzers
This is the darkest timeline
NopeForever
Sounds to me like SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). See also https://apnews.com/article/eu-greenpeace-court-case-enengy-company-bdab76fe6014e4d680b6af6d273e5420
Squossifrage
Greenpeace is not an environmental protection organization, it is an anti-nuclear organization that uses the environment for publicity.
AidanPrydeCork
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87121e0j4yo
end3r420
What a load of shit
DanOrtega
Well it's an american court. We can now ignore them, they hold no power anymore.
whitefoxkei
And Greenpeace responded with a huge middle finger, right?
gboigbhoy
Green peace I guess have tried doing it the “legal” way and it didn’t work. I guess a lot of oil execs are about to find out what happens next
gboigbhoy
And hopefully their fucking lawyers and the judge too
JesaraB
Gotta love how it is barely a footnote that they do not even have the permit to Start the pipeline that is currently running, for years.
And all of that ignores the point that, oh right, international law says they can't give that permit without the consent of the indigenous groups that were protesting, because they have sovereignty on their land.
OliverOtter
They had the permit when the pipeline was built and became operational, but it was temporarily suspended by a judge over three years later. The judge was overturned by the appeals court, who let the pipeline continue to run. The same court en banc later upheld just part of the judge's ruling. The full appeals court said the judge's conclusion that a more thorough environmental impact report probably should have been done was sound, but declined to uphold his order that the pipeline, already
OliverOtter
in operation for years, had to be shut down pending the report's completion. (And it was the Army Corps of Engineers who was found delinquent in not doing the impact report, not the pipeline's operators.) The SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal of it, since the pipeline was allowed to continue operating pending the report's completion. The matter was moot, unless the completed report actually did recommend shutting the pipeline down.
And the pipeline runs underground beneath tribal lands, not
OliverOtter
over the surface. As you say, they have sovereignty ON their LAND. But that sovereignty does not extend to an arbitrary depth, only to a depth where artifacts are found. Nor does it extend over a lake. The issue is not one of sovereignty but reliance. The claim is that a leak could contaminate the PUBLIC lake, which the tribes do not own (the Federal government does); but that the tribes have standing because they rely on the lake for drinking water.
JesaraB
They did not have the permit, at any point in its operation, they had a permit at one point during its Construction, but was invalidated by the courts because it was lacking multiple things including environmental impact studies. The property rights include mineral rights and all depths for that sovereignty you have no clue what you are talking about on that topic at all.
OliverOtter
It was invalidated three years (well, 2 years and 11 months) after the pipeline was completed and already in operation.