Connect with us

Published

on

Organisations and campaigners across the climate justice movement are joining forces to counter the wider chilling effect of a major legal blow that could bankrupt one of its largest players.

Earlier this week, a jury in the US state of North Dakota found Greenpeace International and its US bodies guilty of a mix of defamation, trespass, nuisance and conspiracy – and ordered them to pay more than US$660 million in damages to oil pipeline company Energy Transfer.

The lawsuit related to protests against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. These actions, centered around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, brought Indigenous activists fighting for water rights together with climate campaigners challenging the company’s planned transmission of oil from North Dakota to Illinois. They did not stop the pipeline from being completed, but caused major disruption.

Greenpeace's damages ruling a 'wake-up call' to climate movement
People hold signs in support of the Standing Rock Sioux outside U.S. District Court where the tribe is seeking an injunction to permanently stop the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Energy Transfer had previously sought damages against Greenpeace and others in a federal lawsuit that was dismissed in 2019.

But this time the claim was successful. Energy Transfer’s legal team successfully argued during the court proceedings that Greenpeace had “incited” the disruption. Greenpeace contended that its US bodies only played a small role, and the international group itself merely signed a letter opposing the project.

Greenpeace planning fight-back

Energy Transfer called it “a resounding verdict”, declaring Greenpeace’s actions “wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards”, adding that it “is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace”. But Greenpeace US bodies have said they will appeal and Greenpeace International is “weighing all legal options”.

Greenpeace, which has campaigned on a wide range of environmental matters since the 1970s, acknowledges there is a risk of bankruptcy due to the damages awarded against it. However, it maintains this is “very remote” for its international arm whose assets are located in the Netherlands, where the verdict is “very unlikely to be recognised by Dutch courts”. Greenpeace’s 25 other branches around the world are expected to keep functioning as normal.

The case has been classified as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). These cases, which arose in the United States in the 1970s and ’80s, can take various forms across different jurisdictions. But legal experts say they are an increasingly popular “lawfare” tactic used by powerful companies and individuals around the world – and many cases relate to the environment.

Clean hydrogen hype fades as high costs dampen demand

Sushma Raman, the interim executive director of Greenpeace’s US-based organisations Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, said the ruling was part of a “renewed push by corporations to weaponise our courts to silence dissent”. She added that lawsuits like this are aimed at “destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech”.

“Deeply flawed trial”

Some concerns have centred around the legal proceedings themselves. A trial monitoring committee of independent lawyers concluded that it had been “a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense”. It claims the jury was “patently biased” because many members work in the fossil fuel industry and the judge lacked knowledge on the complex constitutional issues at the heart of the case.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Charlie Holt, European lead at Global Climate Legal Defense and a former legal advisor for Greenpeace International, told Climate Home the decision was shocking, if not surprising. “There’s still an understandable desire to trust in the judicial system. But I think we could see how urgent a threat [the lawsuit] was,” he said.

“This kind of activity is becoming increasingly common across climate action, with fossil fuel actors undermining progress wherever possible,” said Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at non-profit Transparency International.

SLAPP lawsuits proliferate

Holt agreed, warning of copycat cases. “The big fear is that this will embolden other fossil fuel companies to try their luck with these large-scale SLAPPS as a means of shutting down criticism,” he said.

SLAPPs are on the rise in Europe too, but as a jurisdiction it is generally less sympathetic to such claims.

In December, Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International reached an out-of-court settlement in a legal dispute centered on the environmental group’s activism on an off-shore oil production vessel. It was one of the biggest ever legal threats against Greenpeace.

Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu

Last March, oil and gas company TotalEnergies was ordered to pay €15,000 ($16,200) in costs to Greenpeace France after failing to sue the NGO over a report claiming that the energy giant massively underestimated its 2019 greenhouse gas emissions.

Emboldened by decisions like this, Greenpeace International is counter-suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, seeking to recover all costs and damages. If successful, it would be the first application of a new EU anti-SLAPP Directive.

Counter-suit in Dutch court

Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International’s general counsel, said the organisation is “just getting started” and would see Energy Transfer in court in Amsterdam this July. “We will not back down,” she said. “We will not be silenced.”

Greenpeace's damages ruling a 'wake-up call' to climate movement
As part of a Global Week of Action, Greenpeace East Asia Taipei office’s activists join the widespread solidarity of the global Greenpeace network to send the message to Energy Transfer: “We will not be silenced”. (Greenpeace/Yves Chiu)

Anne Jellema, chief executive of climate campaign group 350.org, said the judgment should serve as a “wake-up call” to the entire climate movement, coming alongside a potential unleashing of new fossil fuel production and rollback of environmental protection in the US.

“The ruling sends a dangerous message to environmental organisations worldwide: that corporate polluters can weaponise the courts to silence opposition,” said Jellema, adding that it is “especially concerning” for smaller, frontline groups operating in regions without strong legal protections.

“If one of the world’s most prominent environmental organisations can face financial ruin for speaking out, smaller movements with fewer resources are even more vulnerable,” she said.

Holt said Greenpeace has been mobilising civil society organisations behind US and European anti-SLAPP coalitions since the first claim over the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017. An open letter to Energy Transfer expressing solidarity with Greenpeace was signed by 450 organisations around the world.

The post Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement appeared first on Climate Home News.

Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement

Continue Reading

Climate Change

There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil

Published

on

Alejandro Álvarez Iragorry is a Venezuelan ecologist and coordinator of Clima 21, an environmental NGO. Cat Rainsford is a transition minerals investigator for Global Witness and former Venezuela analyst for a Latin American think tank.

In 1975, former Venezuelan oil minister Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo gave a now infamous warning.

“Oil will bring us ruin,” he declared. “It is the devil’s excrement. We are drowning in the devil’s excrement.”

At the time, his words seemed excessively gloomy to many Venezuelans. The country was in a period of rapid modernisation, fuelled by its booming oil economy. Caracas was a thriving cultural hotspot. Everything seemed good. But history proved Pérez right.

Over the following decades, Venezuela’s oil dependence came to seem like a curse. After the 1980s oil price crash, political turmoil paved the way for the election of populist Hugo Chávez, who built a socialist state on oil money, only for falling prices and corruption to drive it into ruin.

    By 2025, poverty and growing repression under Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro had forced nearly 8 million Venezuelans to leave the country.

    Venezuela is now at a crossroads. Since the US abducted Maduro on January 3 and seized control of the country’s oil revenues in a nakedly imperial act, all attention has been on getting the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure pumping again.

    But Venezuelans deserve more than plunder and fighting over a planet-wrecking resource that has fostered chronic instability and dispossession. Right now, 80% of Venezuelans live below the poverty line. Venezuelans are desperate for jobs, income and change. 

    Real change, though, won’t come through more oil dependency or profiteering by foreign elites. Instead, it is renewable energy that offers a pathway forward, towards sovereignty, stability and peace.

    Guri Dam and Venezuela’s hydropower decline

    Venezuela boasts some of the strongest potential for renewable energy generation in the region. Two-thirds of the country’s own electricity comes from hydropower, mostly from the massive Guri Dam in the southern state of Bolívar. This is one of the largest dams in Latin America with a capacity of over 10 gigawatts, even providing power to parts of Colombia and Brazil.

    Guri has become another symbol of Venezuela’s mismanagement. Lack of diversification caused over-reliance on Guri for domestic power, making the system vulnerable to droughts. Poor maintenance reduced Guri’s capacity and planned supporting projects such as the Tocoma Dam were bled dry by corruption. The country was left plagued by blackouts and increasingly turned to dirty thermoelectric plants and petrol generators for power.

    Today, industry analysis suggests that Venezuela is producing at about 30% of its hydropower capacity. Rehabilitating this neglected infrastructure could re-establish clean power as the backbone of domestic industry, while the country’s abundant river system offers numerous opportunities for smaller, sustainable hydro projects that promote rural electrification.

    A fisherman walks down the coast from the Paraguana Refining Center (CRP) following a crude spill in September from a pipeline that connects production areas with the state-run PDVSA’s largest refinery, in Punta Cardon, Venezuela October 2, 2021. Picture taken October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

    A fisherman walks down the coast from the Paraguana Refining Center (CRP) following a crude spill in September from a pipeline that connects production areas with the state-run PDVSA’s largest refinery, in Punta Cardon, Venezuela October 2, 2021. Picture taken October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

    Venezuela also has huge, untapped promise in wind power that could provide vital diversification from hydropower. The coastal states of Zulia and Falcón boast wind speeds in the ideal range for electricity generation, with potential to add up to 12 gigawatts to the grid. Yet planned projects in both states have stalled, leaving abandoned turbines rusting in fields and millions of dollars unaccounted for.

    Solar power is more neglected. One announced solar plant on the island of Los Roques remains non-functional a decade later, and a Chávez-era programme to supply solar panels to rural households ground to a halt when oil prices fell. Yet nearly a fifth of the country receives levels of solar radiation that rival leading regions such as northern Chile.

    Developing Venezuela’s renewables potential would be a massive undertaking. Investment would be needed, local concerns around a just and equitable transition would have to be navigated and infrastructure development carefully managed.

    Rebuilding Venezuela with a climate-driven energy transition 

    A shift in political vision would be needed to ensure that Venezuela’s renewable energy was not used to simply free up more oil for export, as in the past, but to power a diversified domestic economy free from oil-driven cycles of boom and bust.

    Ultimately, these decisions must be taken by democratically elected leaders. But to date, no timeline for elections has been set, and Venezuela’s future hangs in the balance. Supporting the country to make this shift is in all of our interests.

    What’s clear is that Venezuela’s energy future should not lie in oil. Fossil fuel majors have not leapt to commit the estimated $100 billion needed to revitalise the sector, with ExxonMobil declaring Venezuela “uninvestable”. The issues are not only political. Venezuela’s heavy, sour crude is expensive to refine, making it dubious whether many projects would reach break-even margins.

    Behind it all looms the spectre of climate change. The world must urgently move away from fossil fuels. Beyond environmental concerns, it’s simply good economics.

    People line up as others charge their phones with a solar panel at a public square in Caracas, Venezuela March 10, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

    People line up as others charge their phones with a solar panel at a public square in Caracas, Venezuela March 10, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

    Recent analysis by the International Renewable Energy Agency finds that 91% of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than their fossil fuel alternatives. China, the world’s leading oil buyer, is among the most rapid adopters.

    Tethering Venezuela’s future to an outdated commodity leaves the country in a lose-lose situation. Either oil demand drops and Venezuela is left with nothing. Or climate change runs rampant, devastating vulnerable communities with coastal loss, flooding, fires and heatwaves. Meanwhile, Venezuela remains locked in the same destructive economic swings that once led to dictatorship and mass emigration. There is another way.

    Venezuelans rightfully demand a political transition, with their own chosen leaders. But to ensure this transition is lasting and stable, Venezuela needs more – it needs an energy transition.

    The post There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil appeared first on Climate Home News.

    There is hope for Venezuela’s future – and it isn’t based on oil

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project

    Published

    on

    A cleaner cooking initiative in Myanmar is set to generate the first-ever batch of carbon credits under the new UN carbon market, more than a decade after the mechanism was first envisioned in the Paris Agreement.

    The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body has approved the issuance of 60,000 credits, which correspond to tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced by distributing more efficient cookstoves that need less firewood and, therefore, ease pressure on carbon-storing forests, the project developers say. The approval of the credit issuance will become effective after a 28‑day appeal and grievance period.

    The programme started in 2019 under the previous UN-run carbon offsetting scheme – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – and is being implemented by a South Korean NGO with investment from private South Korean firms.

    The credits are expected to be used primarily by major South Korean polluters to meet obligations under the country’s emissions trading system – a move that will also enable the government to count those units toward emissions reduction targets in its nationally determined contribution (NDC), the UN climate body told Climate Home News.

    Myanmar will use the remaining credits to achieve in part the goals of its national climate plan.

    Making ‘a big difference’

    The approval of the credits issuance represents a major milestone for the UN carbon market established under article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. By generating carbon credits that both governments and private firms can use, the mechanism aims to accelerate global climate action and channel additional finance to developing nations.

      UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell said the approval of the first credits from a clean cooking project shows “how this mechanism can support solutions that make a big difference in people’s daily lives, as well as channeling finance to where it delivers real-life benefits on the ground”.

      “Over two billion people globally are without access to clean cooking, which kills millions every year. Clean cooking protects health, saves forests, cuts emissions and helps empower women and girls, who are typically hardest hit by household air pollution,” he added in a statement.

      Concerns over clean cookstove credits

      Carbon markets are seen as an important channel to raise money to help low-income communities in developing countries switch to less polluting cooking methods. Proceeds from the sale of carbon credits made up 35% of the revenue generated by for-profit clean cooking companies in 2023, according to a report by the Clean Cooking Initiative.

      But many cookstove offsetting projects have faced significant criticism from researchers and campaigners who argue that climate benefits are often exaggerated and weak monitoring can undermine claims of real emission reductions. Their main criticism is that the rules allow project developers to overestimate the impact of fuel collection on deforestation, while relying on surveys to track stove usage that are prone to bias and can further inflate reported impacts.

      As Louisiana bets big on ‘blue ammonia’, communities brace for air pollution

      The project in Myanmar follows a contested methodology developed under the Kyoto Protocol that was rejected last year by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), a watchdog that issues quality labels to carbon credit types, because it is “insufficiently rigorous”.

      An analysis conducted last year by Brussels-based NGO Carbon Market Watch claimed that the project would generate 26 times more credits than it should, when comparing its calculations with values from peer-reviewed scientific literature.

      ‘Conservative’ values cut credit volume

      But, after transitioning from the CDM to the new mechanism, the project applied updated values and “more conservative” assumptions to calculate emission reductions, according to the UNFCCC, which added that this resulted in 40% fewer credits being issued than would have been the case in the CDM.

      “The result is consistent with environmental integrity requirements and ensures that each credited tonne genuinely represents a tonne reduced and contributes to the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the mechanism.

      Over 1,500 projects originally developed under the CDM requested the transition to the new mechanism, including controversial schemes subsidising fossil gas-powered plants in China and India. But, so far, the transfer of only 165 of all those projects has been approved by their respective host nations, which have until the end of June to make a final decision.

      The UN climate body said this means that “a wide variety of real-world climate projects are already in line to follow” in sectors such as renewable energy, waste management and agriculture. But the transfer of old programmes from the CDM has long been contested with critics arguing that weak and discredited rules allow projects to overestimate emission reductions.

      Genuinely new projects unrelated to the CDM are expected to start operating under the Paris Agreement mechanism once the Supervisory Body approves the first custom-made methodologies.

      The post UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project appeared first on Climate Home News.

      UN’s new carbon market delivers first credits through Myanmar cookstove project

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

      Published

      on

      A new independent study by Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka (Centro Universitário de Brasília) and Dr Ben Tippet (King’s College London), commissioned by Greenpeace International, reveals that current International Seabed Authority revenue-sharing proposals would return virtually nothing to developing countries — despite the requirement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that deep sea mining must benefit humankind as a whole.
      Instead, the analysis shows that the overwhelming economic value would flow to a handful of private corporations, primarily headquartered in the Global North.

      Download the report:

      Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

      Executive Summary: Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area

      https://www.greenpeace.org.au/greenpeace-reports/equity-benefit-sharing-and-financial-architecture-in-the-international-seabed-area/

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com