Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by kilroy123 » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

I have some inside knowledge here. When I was in college, I was very idealistic. I was in a special Greenpeace program where they took college students and trained them to become environmental activists. Picture a semester-long, hands-on training course.

You actually fully go out into the field to run campaigns and meet everyone from the President of Greenpeace to the front-end activist hanging banners and whatnot.

I actually liked the President and DC lobbyist folks more than the weridos out and about dropping banners and doing the extreme stuff.

I walked away being kind of turned off from the Organization and realized a lot of these folks were not pragmatic and more dogmatic than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful and had a blast, but I dropped out of college and became a software engineer instead of an activist.

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

#42

Post by terminalshort » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

shrubby wrote: post #12

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?

SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. To keep the dissenting voices quiet and to scare other groups from protesting. Modus operandi for many industries.

A SLAPP is a frivolous lawsuit that the plaintiff has no chance of winning. In this case they won a judgment, so it's the opposite of that.

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

#43

Post by hrimfaxi » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

DrBazza wrote: post #19

ceejayoz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rough jury pool. 75.36% for Trump in the latest election, and one presumes a lot of energy sector employment.

Maybe? The judge, and the lawyers involved have the right to reject jurors that might prejudice a trail.

Lawyers don't have unlimited removals though.

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

#44

Post by terminalshort » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

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…

This is a complete load of shit. Oil is trucked back and forth over those roads all day and night, and that has a much higher leakage rate than a pipeline. NIMBYs never come out and say they just don't want something built. They always have some bullshit excuse like this.

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

#45

Post by terminalshort » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

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??!?

Yes I will think of the property because private property rights are critical and I 100% support private property owners using violence to defend their property from vandals and thieves.

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

#46

Post by oofbey » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

threethirtytwo wrote: post #20

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…

It's already too late. We passed the point of no return. There was a blip where every outlet was saying that the point of no return was like 6 months away than nothing.. We shot right past it.

Strange take. What does that mean? Give up because we can’t do anything - “it’s already too late”? So burn all the oil because YOLO?

Or maybe those people drawing hard lines in the sand were exaggerating to drive urgency and get attention? Sometimes people whose stated goals you agree with say and do things which are wrong.

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

#47

Post by staticautomatic » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

hrimfaxi wrote: post #43

DrBazza wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? The judge, and the lawyers involved have the right to reject jurors that might prejudice a trail.

Lawyers don't have unlimited removals though.

Not peremptory strikes, but you have unlimited removals for cause (and admittedly a steep appellate hill to climb if they’re unfairly denied)

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

#48

Post by b112 » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #32

lkbm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The climate can't sue if you lie about it.

Companies and people can.

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

#49

Post by delichon » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

mastax wrote: post #36

delichon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

In the social justice context, "cell" is a better fit than "company". Some are Antifa Ost, Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front, Armed Proletarian Justice, Revolutionary Class Self-Defense, and Rose City Antifa. If Greenpeace had organized like this, their liability would likely be far lower, but so would their organizing effectiveness.

The expected response from both companies and social groups is to deny the affiliation. The overall strategy is transpartisan because it is effective.

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

#50

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

I think that's not what the article is saying, although I read it that way too at first. Greenpeace USA, the organization whose six employees were on the ground, was found liable for "almost all claims"; it's only Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, their sibling organizations, who were found not to be "responsible for the alleged on-the-ground harms committed by protesters".