©Unsplash
345 million dollars (approx. 297 million euros). That's the amount a North Dakota district court has ordered Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International to pay to oil giant Energy Transfer. A colossal sum.
A sum that, if upheld, could bring one of the world's best-known environmental organizations to its knees. At stake is not only Greenpeace's financial future, but a precedent that could weigh on the whole of climate activism as well.
But what's really going on? It all begins at Standing Rock. Back in 2016. Thousands of people - foremost among them the indigenous Sioux communities - oppose to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline destined to cross sacred lands and waters near the Standing Rock reservation. The images went viral around the world: encampments, prayers, peaceful resistance, police charges and arrests. The movement quickly became a global symbol of the fight against fossil fuels and climate justice.
But according to pipeline operator Energy Transfer, these protests were orchestrated by Greenpeace. The accusation has been rejected by the organization from the onset, calling it unsubstantiated.
The Morton County jury had already reached its verdict in March 2025. The court has now rendered its final decision: while rejecting certain parts of the verdict, it has nevertheless awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to the company.
Greenpeace has announced its response: the NGO will ask for a new trial and, if necessary, will go all the way to the North Dakota Supreme Court. According to its lawyers, there's no concrete proof that the organization pulled the strings behind the protests. And the decision, they claim, would be tainted by the admission of incriminating testimony of a provocative nature and by the exclusion of elements favorable to the defense.
The issue is not just financial. Greenpeace speaks openly of a legal procedure initiated to stifle dissent, overwhelm activists and organizations with legal fees and discourage public participation. This is no small matter: if taking a stand against a fossil fuel project can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, who will still dare to do so tomorrow?
That's why Greenpeace International, headquartered in the Netherlands, has taken legal action against Energy Transfer in Europe. This is a crucial test of whether big business can continue to use the courts as an instrument of pressure against civil society.
The amount of the claim is such that it could have extremely serious consequences for the organization's accounts. But Greenpeace is not backing down; on the contrary, it is counter-attacking: "We will not be silenced," declared International Executive Director Mads Christensen.
What's at stake goes far beyond a single organization. A decisive game is being played around freedom of expression, the right to demonstrate, and the ability of citizens and communities to oppose projects they deem harmful to the environment and health.
In short, the story is far from over. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, one thing is already clear: the conflict between major fossil fuel interests and climate movements is increasingly being played out in the courts too.
(©GreenMe.it 2026 / Managing Editor: Selma Keshkire - The Press Junction / Picture: ©Unsplash)