Wow! Greenpeace Ordered to Pay Hundreds of Millions of $$$

1 CommentCommentary, Environment, Government

Patrick Moore is a figure whose name often stirs debate, particularly in environmental circles. Born in 1947 in British Columbia, Canada, Moore earned a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia and became an early member of Greenpeace, joining in 1971. During his 15-year tenure, he played a significant role, serving as president of Greenpeace Canada for nine years and as a director of Greenpeace International for seven. He was part of the organization’s foundational efforts, which included high-profile campaigns like the one to stop U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska—a mission that helped put Greenpeace on the map.

Moore often describes himself as a co-founder, a claim rooted in his participation in the 1971 voyage aboard the Phyllis Cormack (renamed Greenpeace), though Greenpeace itself disputes this, crediting its official founding to others like Irving Stowe, Dorothy Stowe, Jim Bohlen, and Bob Hunter in 1970.

In those early days, Greenpeace was a scrappy, volunteer-driven group focused on tangible environmental wins. Moore highlights these achievements in a recent X post: “As a co-founder of Greenpeace in 1971 until I left in 1986 because they abandoned science in favor of scare stories and lies… In the early years we stopped hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska, atmospheric nuclear tests in French Polynesia, saving 30,000 great whales annually by Russia and Japan, the slaughter of 250,000 harp seal pups annually on the Canadian ice floes, and stopped all manner of toxic waste discharges into rivers and the sea.” It’s a resume that reflects a pragmatic, science-based approach to activism—goals that many still admire. But Moore’s relationship with Greenpeace soured by 1986, when he left, citing a shift in the organization’s direction. He argues it abandoned reason for sensationalism, a sentiment echoed in his X post: “They have become the opposite of their founding members.”

Since his departure, Moore has taken a different stance, particularly on climate change and carbon dioxide, which he defends as “the primary molecule for all life, plants and animals.” This view, detailed in his book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, has made him a polarizing figure. Critics, including Greenpeace, accuse him of straying from ecological principles, while supporters see him as a voice of clarity against what they call exaggerated environmental narratives aka climate nonsense.

Which brings us to the recent $650 million judgment against Greenpeace, a development Moore – and let’s be fair, many of us climate skeptics – seems to relish. In his X post, he writes, “I hope they get bankrupted due to their violent behavior against the oil pipeline in North Dakota. A jury has found them liable for $650 million.” This stems from a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), which accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy during protests in 2016 and 2017. The DAPL, a 1,200-mile oil pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois, became a flashpoint when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and thousands of activists, including Greenpeace supporters, opposed its construction, citing risks to water supplies and sacred lands. The protests, at their peak, drew up to 10,000 people, with clashes involving property damage and disruptions that Energy Transfer claimed cost them dearly—around $340 million in direct damages and delays, plus punitive damages sought to send a message.

After a federal case was dismissed in 2017, Energy Transfer took the fight to a North Dakota state court. On March 19, 2025, a jury ruled against Greenpeace, ordering them to pay over $660 million (often reported as $650 million in shorthand) for their role in what the company called a “malicious publicity campaign.” The verdict covers defamation—alleged falsehoods that harmed Energy Transfer’s reputation with banks and investors—along with physical damages linked to the protests. Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and the Greenpeace Fund were named, though only Greenpeace USA was tied to on-the-ground actions, with all three found liable for reputational harm.

What does this mean for Greenpeace? It’s a gut punch. The organization has vowed to appeal, arguing the lawsuit is an attack on free speech and Indigenous-led resistance, not just their own coffers. They’ve warned that such a payout could push them toward bankruptcy, a prospect Moore cheers but one that’s far from certain. Greenpeace’s global network is complex, with assets spread across entities, and they’ve weathered financial storms before. Still, $650 million is no small sum, and legal battles will drain resources further. Critics like us might say they’ve drifted far from their roots—less about saving whales and more about stoking fear, as Moore puts it, “in favor of scare stories and lies.”

Whether this judgment cripples them or galvanizes their base, it’s a stark reminder of how far the group has veered from the days Moore recalls with pride. For now, the fight continues, both in court and in the court of public opinion.