Greenpeace is facing a $660 million lawsuit by Energy Transfer Partners. The verdict is more than a legal case; it could change the climate movement significantly. The lawsuit came from Greenpeace’s involvement in the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). This project has been controversial for its environmental and social effects.
The talk about the verdict often centers on free speech. But its wider effects on climate activism and the fight against fossil fuels mustn’t be overlooked.
The Dakota Access Pipeline and Its Climate Impact
The Dakota Access Pipeline is 1,172 miles long. It has sparked many environmental protests since it was built. The pipeline transports crude oil from North Dakota to refineries in other parts of the country.

Environmentalists say this project worsens climate change. It helps with fossil fuel extraction and burning. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other activists opposed the pipeline. They feared oil spills could contaminate water sources and harm ecosystems.
Fossil fuel projects like DAPL contribute significantly to global carbon emissions. The pipeline can transport 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily. When burned, this oil releases millions of metric tons of CO₂ into the air each year.
Greenpeace opposes these projects because of the need to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. However, this legal verdict against the organization raises concerns about the future of climate advocacy.
Greenpeace’s Role in Climate Advocacy
For decades, Greenpeace has led the fight for the environment. They challenge companies and governments to act more decisively against climate change. The organization has been key in raising awareness about deforestation, ocean conservation, and the risks of relying on fossil fuels.
In the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Greenpeace supported Indigenous-led protests and helped amplify concerns about the project’s long-term environmental consequences. Energy Transfer claimed that the organization defamed them and stirred up protests. However, Greenpeace says their actions aimed to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damage.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director, noted:
“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet. The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
Legal Threats Against Climate Activists and Climate Movement
This lawsuit shows a trend. Fossil fuel companies are using legal action more often to fight against environmental opponents. Big companies often use lawsuits called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) to stop activism. SLAPPs can cost environmental groups a lot of money. This makes it tough for them to keep working.
Greenpeace’s legal battles are not unique. In recent years, companies like Shell, TotalEnergies, and ENI have also pursued legal actions against Greenpeace and other environmental groups. These lawsuits worry people. This could affect climate activists’ fight against high-emission industries.
The ruling against Greenpeace could have a chilling effect on climate activism. Environmental groups might hold back from challenging big fossil fuel companies if they worry about expensive legal issues. This could slow down efforts to hold polluters accountable and push for stronger climate policies.
The case also raises questions about how fossil fuel companies may use legal systems to avoid scrutiny. Companies like Energy Transfer can shift the conversation from their carbon footprint to the activists. This way, they avoid addressing the environmental and climate concerns raised by these groups.
Fossil Fuel Expansion vs. Climate Goals
While global leaders urge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel projects keep growing. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that to keep global warming below 1.5°C, no new oil and gas projects should be approved. Yet, pipelines like DAPL show that people keep investing in fossil fuels. This focus delays the shift to cleaner energy options.
Greenpeace’s opposition to such projects aligns with the broader climate science consensus that urgent action is needed. However, this lawsuit shows how fossil fuel companies fight back. They shift the focus from environmental issues to legal battles.
The growth of fossil fuel industries, especially oil and gas, creates major issues for global climate goals. This is because they emit a lot of greenhouse gases (GHG).
In 2023, CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels hit a record 37.4 billion metric tons. This is a 1.1% rise from 2022. The chart shows the industry’s emissions in the U.S.

- Specifically, oil and gas operations are responsible for around 15% of total energy-related emissions globally, equating to approximately 5.1 billion metric tons of CO₂ equivalent annually.
Moreover, the oil refining industry also plays a big role in GHG emissions. They rose from 1.38 billion metric tons in 2000 to 1.59 billion metric tons in 2021.
Methane, a potent GHG, is also a major concern in the oil and gas sector. Oil and gas operations in the United States release more than 6 million metric tons of methane each year. This worsens climate change because methane traps heat much better than CO₂.
Burning fossil fuels for electricity and heat is the biggest source of global GHG emissions. It makes up 34% of the total. The industrial sector contributes 24% of global GHG emissions, primarily from on-site fossil fuel combustion for energy.
These stats highlight the urgent need for renewable energy. Companies must also adopt strict emission cuts to meet global climate goals.
A Precedent for Future Climate Activism?
This legal case could set a dangerous precedent. If other fossil fuel companies sue environmental groups, activism might become too expensive to continue. This would weaken one of the most powerful forces advocating for climate action.
Despite the setback, Greenpeace has vowed to continue its fight. The organization has filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court. They want to recover damages and legal costs from this case. The outcome of these legal battles could shape the future of climate advocacy and corporate accountability.
The $660 million verdict against Greenpeace is not just about free speech—it’s about the future of climate activism. As fossil fuel companies expand their legal tactics to counteract opposition, environmental organizations face increasing challenges in their fight for a sustainable future.
The post Greenpeace Faces $660 Million Verdict: A Turning Point for Climate Action? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

