Rhett Ayers Butler

Greenpeace’s costly courtroom loss and the chilling effect on environmental protest

A North Dakota jury’s decision to saddle Greenpeace with nearly $667 million in damages marks a sobering moment for environmental activism in the United States.

Energy Transfer, operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespass, and conspiracy during the 2016-2017 protests near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The protests, led by Indigenous groups and joined by thousands, became a symbol of resistance against fossil fuel expansion. Greenpeace’s role was largely supportive—training activists in nonviolent protest and providing supplies. But the jury saw otherwise.

The sheer scale of the verdict—more than ten times Greenpeace USA’s annual fundraising—portends far more than the potential bankruptcy of a single organization. It signals to companies that, with the right legal strategy and jurisdiction, they can impose crushing financial penalties on activist groups whose protests inflict reputational or economic harm. In a country where more than 30 states have passed laws designed to protect against strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing protest (SLAPPs), the outcome will nonetheless embolden corporate litigants. Others may follow Energy Transfer’s playbook, rebranding advocacy as conspiracy and seeking damages rather than dialogue.

While Energy Transfer insists the case was about illegal conduct, not free speech, the line between the two is perilously blurred. If a jury can be persuaded that public protest equates to financial sabotage, no environmental activist group—however law-abiding—can act with confidence.

The stakes extend beyond the environmental movement. As the climate crisis deepens, protest is often the last recourse for marginalized communities defending land, water, and health. This verdict risks turning the legal system into a cudgel against such dissent. Greenpeace will appeal, but the chilling effect is immediate.

The message this verdict sends to activists is clear: protest too effectively, and you may not just lose the argument—you may lose everything.

Australian agronomist Tony Rinaudo’s reforestation project in Niger was failing, with 80% of his planted saplings dying, until he stumbled upon a simple solution in plain sight: stumps of previously cut trees trying desperately to regrow in the dry, deforested landscape.

Rinaudo realized that the degraded land contained numerous such stumps with intact root systems capable of regenerating themselves, plus millions of tree seeds hidden in the soil, which farmers could simply encourage to grow and reforest the landscape, something he refers to as “an invisible forest in plain view.”

Today, the technique of letting trees resprout and protecting their growth from livestock and wildlife is called farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) and is responsible for reforesting 6 million hectares (15 million acres) in Niger alone.

Rinaudo recently spoke with Rachel Donald about his journey implementing this technique and its massive potential to help tackle biodiversity loss and food insecurity through resilient agroforestry systems.

“The biggest change that I see when I go back into these communities is the restoration of hope,” Rinaudo says. “If you can put yourself in the shoes of these families who struggle to feed their children adequately [and] then here comes this very, very simple concept, literally a solution at your feet which empowers you and enables you to create that future that you want, simply, by now working with these wonderful forces of nature, instead of fighting them, and seeing them as the enemy that needs to be conquered.”

📰 + 🎙 Harnessing ‘invisible forests in plain view’ to reforest the world
https://lnkd.in/d-U5-c5M