Live data from Hacker News

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

northdakotamonitor.com

201–210 of 245 posts

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

#201
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage... . That’s legally straightforward conduct…

> The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction Decades and centuries from now our descendants will be dealing with the consequences of the destroyed c…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

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

#202
post #146
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 agree. In the long term we need to reduce fossil fuel usage but in the short term, restricting pipeline construction means that more petroleum products are transported by rail cars which is a lot dirtier and more dangerous. We have to take a pragmatic harm minimization approach rather than being idealistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_f...

You're probably right, but when I look around the Front Range at the landscape blighted by drought, the mountains naked of snow, the skyline hazed by smog and the smoke from forest fires, I feel like this is where pragmatism has gotten us.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s too late. Look at the science. Also I never mentioned just give up. I just said it’s already too late. That’s reality. What you do next is your choice. But don’t put words in my mouth.

It's never too late, that's not what "the science" says it's what the clickbait vulture news bullshit you're reading is saying. The real science on the matter is that every day things get just a little bit worse, and every improvement makes things just a little bit better. There's no magic cliff, no point of no return, just one day after another.

When I said it is too late, I did not mean tomorrow the oceans boil and the lights go out.

I meant something more precise. And more unforgiving.

You say there is no magic cliff. No point of no return. Just one day after another, each fractionally worse or better. That sounds reasonable. It sounds adult. It sounds scientific.

But it quietly assumes that all damage is reversible if we simply act hard enough and fast enough.

That assumption is already false.

We have warmed the planet by roughly 1.2 to 1.3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. That is not a projection. That is measured reality. The last time Earth was only 4 to 5 degrees cooler, mile thick ice sheets covered large parts of North America. A shift of a few degrees defines geological eras. We have moved a quarter of that distance in a century.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide now exceeds 420 parts per million. For hundreds of thousands of years before the industrial era it oscillated between about 180 and 280. We have pushed the system into a concentration not seen for millions of years. During the last time CO2 was this high, sea levels were dramatically higher than today. That future rise is not optional. It is delayed.

So what did I mean by too late.

I meant it is too late to preserve the climate of the Holocene, the stable envelope within which human civilization developed.

It is too late to save most tropical coral reefs. At around 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, scientists project that 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs will disappear. At 2 degrees, more than 99 percent. We are already seeing global mass bleaching events at current warming. Entire reef systems are dying now. Not in some distant scenario. Those ecosystems evolved over millions of years. They will not regrow on any human timeline.

It is too late to avoid long term sea level rise measured in meters. Greenland is losing on the order of 280 billion tons of ice per year. Antarctica is losing over 150 billion tons per year. Even if we halted emissions tomorrow, thermal expansion of warming oceans and destabilized ice sheets would continue raising sea levels for centuries. Coastal cities built for twentieth century shorelines are living on borrowed time.

It is too late to prevent large scale permafrost thaw. Permafrost contains nearly twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. As it thaws, it releases carbon dioxide and methane, amplifying warming. Once thawed, it does not politely refreeze into its prior carbon locked state.

It is too late to prevent entire species from disappearing. Extinction is not a gradient. When a species is gone, it is gone.

You are correct that every tenth of a degree matters. That mitigation still matters. That 1.8 degrees is better than 2.4. That 2.4 is better than 3. That is absolutely true.

But that is not the same as saying we have not crossed tipping points.

Complex systems do not respond like thermostats. They contain thresholds. Ice sheets thin until their grounding lines retreat beyond stable positions. Forests lose resilience until drought and fire push them into new states. Reefs bleach repeatedly until recovery becomes impossible. These are not dramatic cinematic cliffs. They are physical thresholds beyond which return is no longer feasible on meaningful timescales.

When I say too late, I mean too late to keep the world we inherited.

Too late to avoid irreversible losses already locked in by accumulated greenhouse gases. Too late to spare entire ecosystems. Too late to guarantee that future generations inherit coastlines, fisheries, and seasonal stability anything like what we knew.

We are no longer in the phase of prevention. We are in the phase of damage control.

The remaining carbon budget for a fifty percent chance of staying below 1.5 degrees is on the order of a few hundred gigatons of carbon dioxide. At roughly 40 gigatons per year of global emissions, that budget is effectively consumed within this decade under current trajectories. That is not hysteria. That is arithmetic.

So no, there is no single theatrical moment when a siren sounds and the planet declares defeat.

Instead there is a ledger.

Energy added. Ice lost. Species erased. Feedbacks activated.

You can call that one day after another.

I call it a series of doors closing.

Not all of them. Not yet.

But enough that saying it is never too late feels less like science and more like comfort.

Too late does not mean hopeless.

It means the window to preserve the old equilibrium has closed.

What remains is how much more we are willing to lose.

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm aware the Texas Two Step is used by companies to get out of paying what they legally owe. It's unclear to me if this particular case is a good example of that today ... They are using the same law firm (Jones Day) as the others. It's a perfectly good example. > ... because J&J has committed to paying at least $61.5b and that's much more than the judgements against them. Actually, the $2B and $8.9B proposals in…

Your post boils down to "funding commitments are worthless and unenforceable", which if true is 1. surprising to me, a layman. and 2. means it's just as well J&J's ploy didn't work. All the rest about J&J using the same law firm etc. doesn't make for much of a smoking gun for me. You're also right about the perverse incentives. But it would be equally unfair if the last 37k of those 38k plaintiffs didn't get any mone…

Using the same law firm which has made a point of assisting companies through this process...

Of which it has represented four companies. The first three of whom, using Jones Day's playbook, have managed to escape with making payments that are a single digit percentage of what they actually have judgments for, have told the courts, through those same lawyers, "Yeah, we're not actually going to be held to those commitments" and have faced no further consequences, almost as if the lack of commitment was a part of the plan...

... and the fourth, J&J/LTL is trying the exact same thing, and every time they have been rebuffed, have tried and tried again, four times now.

Is it a good thing that this isn't working so far? It's a better thing, perhaps. But the plan of J&J and LTL is to keep pushing and hope it does work in the hope that, like Jones Day's other clients and playbook, they will be able to fold up, having paid a tiny fraction of their liabilities out, while J&J continues to make billions a year in profits.

Many, many attorneys, let alone judges/courts, are of the clear belief that this is exactly what J&J is attempting to do.

That they have not been successful thus far is not in any way deserving of credit towards J&J.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "the laws" We live under law or we die under anarchy.

There are many other reasons that can kill you under the law besides anarchy, one of those is climate change and GP definitely has a very valid point. Clearly the 'drill-baby-drill' crowd doesn't like Greenpeace at all and is doing what they can to muzzle activists because they know that if they manage to squelch Greenpeace then many lesser funded organizations will not be able to do anything all all. But history doe…

Ironically, a lot of the folks I've known sitting in trees might hold that the NGOs soak up resources and actions and basically prevent material and direct action.

The hyper-local point of that is how my buddies haven't taken grinders to the flock cameras because there is a local de-flocked group who is trying to exhaust legal actions before moving on to other options. But it's not like that kind of direct action is thought of as unethical by a lot of us, even if it's legibly illegal.

And regardless of what a person thinks about the direct action, the (very separate) idea that these larger, legal, above-ground groups are what keep folks who have very strong "feelings" from acting is a position held by folks on all sides of these things. That strategy seems central to the neo-liberal method of dealing with social unrest.

In that ecosystem, if you kill off the big NGOs you might see a thousand tiny and headless ELFs bloom.

If the post-neo-liberal (god what a shitty turn of phrase, sorry) strategy looks like "ICE", then good luck to them; the 3000:100000 ratio didn't go well in Minneapolis and as more folks start looking at how we didn't have a winter at all where I live (it's 65 degrees this week at almost 7000' in SW Colorado and the ground frost has broken) then that strategy might be subjected to reality.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funny. I didn't know who Jill Stein is, so I asked an LLM about how she is relevant. Instead of explaining how she might be involved in evil conspiracies, it thinks that Jill Stein is relevant because, "like a charged college kid," she was apparently at this Greenpeace protest! Hilarious.

She ran for President in 2024. Where were you?

I regularly can't remember who that one person is in that one movie either. I think part of being bad with names is that you don't actually care. That may offend some people, but hopefully less so if they consider that I think my name is just as unimportant as the next guy's.

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

#207
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I disagree. I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/news/studies-underscore-oil-and-g...

My point is not that oil fails to generate revenue. Clearly it is a lucrative business. Instead, my claim is that the state economy was remarkably robust, productive, healthy, and well-optimized for middle class quality of life pre-2007.

Does it sound surprising to you that it was perfectly normal to rent a perfect acceptable two bedroom apartment in a safe town on the interstate for $300 a month and still easily find dignified, decent paying jobs without 1000 applications?

I've lived in many cities and work in tech now, and I can confidently say that, as it concerns the professions and jobs that unambiguously sustain and improve life, no community on the planet was more productive than my home state. There is more to the story than some shale.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil companies have a definite history of punching people and then suing them for running into their fist. But I should also point out that Greenpeace is the kind of shitty activist company that also does those kind of tactics, so an oil company suing Greenpeace leaves my priors as "I don't know which side is more likely right in this scenario."

> I don't know which side is more likely right in this scenario. What are the motives? Follow the money? Who profits most might give an indication of who is more likely wrong.

[deleted]

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

#209
post #51

> 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?

The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage... . That’s legally straightforward conduct…

It's more that they paid $20K for "direct action training"

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil companies have a definite history of punching people and then suing them for running into their fist. But I should also point out that Greenpeace is the kind of shitty activist company that also does those kind of tactics, so an oil company suing Greenpeace leaves my priors as "I don't know which side is more likely right in this scenario."

> I don't know which side is more likely right in this scenario. What are the motives? Follow the money? Who profits most might give an indication of who is more likely wrong.

Don’t underestimate the capacity of feelers to be wrong for free.
Post reply on HN