Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

northdakotamonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 245 posts

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#31

Post by delichon »

beambot wrote: post #17
hermannj314 wrote: post #10

If you are going to break the law under capitalism, you must do it sustainably. Facebook, Apple, et al have shown that the latency of judicial pipeline usually means a billion dollar in fines comes after several billion in profits. You profit from the lag between the crime and the consequence. I don't think social justice has that same profit pipeline, but I am not sure. There is an asymmetry in the type of evil our…

They just need to do what oil & gas (and other "dirty" industries) do to avoid reputcussions: form lots of shell companies to shield the parent. It becomes a hydra of corporations kinda like terrorist cells.

[flagged]

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#32

Post by jacquesm »

lkbm wrote: post #4
foolfoolz wrote: post #3

> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring. > how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust? Alternative possibility: they were actually guilty. Seems likely. The idea that Greenpeace was intentionally spreading misinformation doesn't require a big leap of faith.

Unlike oil companies who would of course never do such a thing.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#33

Post by staplers »

oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

  Also for the ND pipeline, I think it does relatively little to change the economics of fossil fuels.
This is ignoring the issue of tribal sovereignty and water rights which is where most of the issue lies imo. No one is trying to ruin the economy, they simply want untainted natural resources on their own property.

If this pipeline was going through disneyland, i don't think you'd hear popular arguments about disney trying to ruin the oil economy.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#35

Post by bluGill »

xoofoog wrote: post #24
oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

But restricting supply raises prices and naturally encourages sustainable energy. That kind of change is self reinforcing. Government incentives disappear at the change of every administration.

No, restricting supply when it exists just turns people paying the higher prices against you. When the supply restrictions are in fundamentals it can work for you. When supply restrictions are on something few people care about it can work for you. However the majority of people (particularly in ND) drive and feel the cost of gas - often they feel these costs even more than they really affect the budget because they are visible every time you buy it in ways the things that have a larger effect on their budget are not.

If you want to encourage sustainable energy you need to make that your focus. Make it cheaper. Ignore oil and fight laws that make it harder to build sustainable energy. ND has great wind potential (they get 40% of their electric from wind already), but it could be better (they have a small population - which means they can export wind energy to Minnesota or if we build transmission lines even farther).

When you focus on raising oil prices you ensure that your side gets voted out in the next election and your gains are undone. When you focus on building renewable energy you get something that can stay. (Just don't build only on the white house as that can be quickly removed - build everywhere so removal is expensive)

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#36

Post by mastax »

delichon wrote: post #31
beambot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just need to do what oil & gas (and other "dirty" industries) do to avoid reputcussions: form lots of shell companies to shield the parent. It becomes a hydra of corporations kinda like terrorist cells.

[flagged]

Really? Could you point at one of these shell companies?

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#37

Post by thecrash »

oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation.

This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#38

Post by oofbey »

staplers wrote: post #33
oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

Also for the ND pipeline, I think it does relatively little to change the economics of fossil fuels. This is ignoring the issue of tribal sovereignty and water rights which is where most of the issue lies imo. No one is trying to ruin the economy, they simply want untainted natural resources on their own property. If this pipeline was going through disneyland, i don't think you'd hear popular arguments about disney t…

I think that’s half right. We are absolutely horrendous to natives around here. But that’s not why Greenpeace got involved, nor why most of the left cares about this issue.

If the pipeline was going through Disneyland I think you’d still see the same people up in arms protesting. They’d just be searching for a different justification.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#39

Post by verdverm »

valec wrote: post #30
DrBazza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wrong direction as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I don't have much time for Greenpeace. Much of their activism has never been science based, and usually involves criminal acts against property. History will not be kind to them. Their only highlight is 'saving' the wh…

won't someone think of the property??!?

prosperity comes from property, just add sí /s

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#40

Post by jonas21 »

DrScientist wrote: post #34

Sounds like it's time for GreenPeace USA to follow the chemical industries example - do a corporate reorg, put all the liabilities in specific subsidiary and then declare bankrupacy for that subsidiary.

I assume that is the point of having a Greenpeace USA -- to shield Greenpeace International and other Greenpeace organizations from liability. And it seems to have mostly worked.
Post reply on HN