Today, September 15, is the 54th anniversary of the day in 1971 when a fishing boat left Vancouver filled with activists who hoped to prevent an American nuclear weapons test off the Alaskan coastline. The vessel was named Greenpeace. The sailors/protesters didn’t stop the nuclear blast, but their voyage did lead to founding one of the world’s most strident anti-energy NGOs.
Today, Greenpeace is sailing its roughest waters ever. The NGO is facing an existential crisis after ending up on the bad side of a $667 million damage award in a civil lawsuit. Bailing Out Greenpeace: Lefty Donors Who Could Pay Up for Dakota Access Damages, an April 2025 Capital Research Center report, covered the controversy:
Last month a North Dakota jury awarded $667 million in combined damages against Greenpeace International, the U.S.-based Greenpeace Fund, and it’s direct-action affiliate, Greenpeace USA. The award was won by Energy Transfer and in response to violent 2016 protests against the energy firm’s Dakota Access pipeline. The jury was convinced that Greenpeace had defamed Energy Transfer and given financial and other assistance to the evildoers. (Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace plans to appeal.)
The two American affiliates owe $535 million of the total, which equals 10 years of their combined annual revenue (minus healthy fund transfers between them, as explained below). Greenpeace plausibly says this damage award could close its doors. If Greenpeace’s wealthy donors truly share its principles, then maybe they should save it by paying Energy Transfer what is owed.
Doomberg, a Substack newsletter dedicated to energy and economics reporting, provided a concise summary of the allegations against Greenpeace. The Doomberg analysis was quoted in the CRC report:
The tactics used during the months-long siege set a new standard for violence and wanton criminality. According to court filings submitted by the company, the protesters pursued a campaign of “militant direct action,” regularly trespassing on ET’s private property, destroying construction equipment, and assaulting employees and contractors. Improvised explosive devices were deployed to attack police, hacked information was used to threaten officers and their families, and weapons were used to kill the livestock of local farmers and ranchers. At certain points, local authorities were overwhelmed, barely able to control the riots.
This behavior was on brand, according to the overview in the InfluenceWatch profile of Greenpeace:
Greenpeace is one of the most internationally recognized environmentalist organizations. It is well-known for its attention-seeking stunts and radical views. Greenpeace has also sought to actively sabotage those industries it sees as harmful to the environment.
Greenpeace supports far-left environmental legislation and is a proponent of a Green New Deal. It is also opposed to the use of readily available fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. It opposes zero-emission nuclear energy. The organization is also opposed to expanding food production and nutrition by the use of genetic technology.
In addition to the InfluenceWatch reports on Greenpeace and its affiliates, the Capital Research Center has at least 14 pages of resources that report on the group directly or reference its work.
As one of the most strident worldwide opponents of nuclear energy, the only limitlessly abundant source of emissions-free electricity, Greenpeace is also included in the InfluenceWatch profile of the anti-nuclear movement: Opposition to Nuclear Energy.
