Ep. 4 | Greenpeace Loses Lawsuit and Ordered to Pay Over $600 million

---

Transcript:

Here is a transcript of the interview using "Host" and "Co-host" for names, drawing from the provided source:

Host: All right, y'all. Let's dive in. We're going to take what you're reading, find that real good stuff. Today, we're looking at this whole Dakota Access Pipeline situation. You know, the protests and the lawsuit, and there was a real big court decision, too. You sent over a newsletter from Nathan Hammer, and man, it brings a whole new way of seeing this. It is fascinating how personal beliefs and the law sometimes clash, especially with big projects like pipelines. This DAPL situation really shows how complicated it gets. And Nathan's perspective from inside the native community is really insightful.

Co-host: All right, so let's break this down. The newsletter talks about how the DAPL got so controversial back in 2016. For those of us who don't remember all the details, why did those protests even start in the first place?

Host: Well, the opposition mostly came from the Standing Rock Sue tribe. They had two big worries. First, that pipeline might contaminate the Missouri River. That's their main source of water, you know. Second, they thought the pipeline route might mess with some of their sacred sites.

Co-host: And the tribe wasn't alone, right? The newsletter mentions how the protests drew thousands of activists including environmental activist Greenpeace.

Host: You got it. Greenpeace was a big part of it. They gave resources and organization plus they brought a lot of attention to the movement. Their involvement definitely made those protests much bigger. Okay, so this is where things took a turn. Like a lot of protests, things got more intense and then people got into legal trouble. What exactly happened?

Co-host: There were peaceful protests for sure, but some actions went further. The newsletter mentions people trespassing on private land. And there was vandalism and clashes with the police. Energy Transfer, the company behind the DAPL, they filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace back in 2017 because of all that.

Host: The newsletter spells it out pretty clear. They're alleging defamation, civil conspiracy, trespass, and nuisance. They said they lost a lot of money because of it. What does civil conspiracy even mean?

Co-host: Basically, it means when two or more people agree to do something illegal or to do something legal, but in an illegal way. And that ends up hurting someone else. Energy Transfer said Greenpeace teamed up with others to do illegal stuff that costs them a ton of money. Those other things like defamation and trespass and nuisance, that's about hurting their reputation, messing with their property, and just getting in their way.

Host: Makes sense. But Greenpeace obviously saw it differently. They said it was an assault on free speech, a strategic attempt to silence dissent. Sounds like they thought they couldn't even protest.

Co-host: That was a big part of their defense. They said the lawsuit was just meant to scare environmental groups and shut them up. Like a way to stop anyone from criticizing big companies. They said it was an attack on freedom of speech and the right to hold companies accountable. Well, the newsletter says the court didn't side with Greenpeace. On March 19th of last year, 2025, there was a pretty big decision.

Host: Yep. A jury in North Dakota decided that Greenpeace owed Energy Transfer over $660 million. That's a lot of money, and it really shows where the line is for protests, at least in this case.

Co-host: The newsletter even quotes Energy Transfer from July 2024. They said, "Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law. When it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that." Really lays it out there.

Host: It does. They're saying protesting is fine, but you can't break the law. It's not about what people think or say. It's about actions that they saw as illegal and that hurt their business.

Co-host: Now, again, remember, and the newsletter does a good job of this that the DAPL wasn't just built out of nowhere. There was a whole legal process to get it approved.

Host: Absolutely. The DAPL got permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. That law says the government has to check the environmental impact of projects like this. So, they did their assessments and then they approved the pipeline. And Nathan being a tribal member himself makes a really interesting point. He gets why people are upset about native lands impacted, but he also says we got to respect the legal processes in place. That's a balanced perspective.

Co-host: It is. It shows that even within the native community, there are different opinions. Nathan understands the concerns about native land. A lot of people share those. But he's also saying we got to work within the system, not do things that are illegal. It's a more strategic way of thinking about advocacy. The newsletter goes into some of the things Greenpeace did that went beyond just peaceful protesting.

Host: Nathan says they encouraged blockades of construction sites, supported trespassing on private property and amplified efforts that disrupted pipeline operations. They wanted to get attention and stop construction, but that kind of stuff comes with legal risks and it could be dangerous, too.

Co-host: The newsletter even says those actions posed safety risks and made the situation volatile. We don't always think about that side of things.

Host: You're right. When protests stop construction or get in the way of a big project like that, it can be dangerous for everyone. The protesters and the workers, someone could get hurt. Nathan's perspective as a member of the Cherokee Nation really stands out. He obviously cares about protecting land and indigenous rights, but he's all about doing it the right way legally.

Co-host: His viewpoint matters because he's part of the community that's most affected by all of this. He believes in defending native land and their rights. But he says breaking laws instead of engaging the system head-on doesn't work. He wants people to use the system we have like lawsuits, petitions, and challenging regulations. That's how you make real change. He uses a pretty strong analogy. He says making fools of yourselves does only that. He sees this verdict against Greenpeace as proof that activism must operate within legal bounds. He thinks breaking the law actually hurts the cause.

Host: That analogy really hits home. He's saying you have to be credible and work within the law if you want to be effective. He thinks illegal actions just hurt the movement's reputation and make real change less likely. So what's the big lesson here? This whole thing shows how tricky it is to balance the right to protest with making sure people are accountable when they break the law.

Co-host: That's the core issue. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are so important in a democracy. But this case proves that those rights have limits. You can't just do whatever you want. This verdict tells us that society expects people to be passionate, but also to stay within the law. We need laws to keep things orderly and to protect people.

Host: The newsletter ends with a powerful statement. Greenpeace messed with the bull and they got both horns, proving that passion without restraint can lead to a costly fall. That's pretty straightforward.

Co-host: Yeah, it is. It's a good way to remember what can happen when activism ignores the law. Even if you have good intentions, things can go wrong and there can be serious consequences.

Host: So, as you can see, Nathan's newsletter really helps us understand the whole energy infrastructure thing and the activism and the law. The big takeaway is that there can be big legal trouble if you go beyond legal protesting. It makes us think about how to use our right to free speech, but also how to respect the law. We need laws to keep our society functioning.

Co-host: Here's something to think about. After this big verdict, how will environmental and indigenous rights groups change how they protest energy projects? Will we see big changes in how people fight for these important issues?

Host: Lots to think about there. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. Hope you have a better understanding of this whole situation now. Take care, y'all.

---

Connect with Nate on his personal website.