Oil giant Shell has launched an intimidation lawsuit against
Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International - demanding Greenpeace
stop protests at its infrastructure at sea or in port anywhere in
the world, forever, or face an $8.6m damages claim and an
injunction.
The lawsuit is Shell’s response to a peaceful protest by
Greenpeace International earlier this year, in which activists
occupied a moving oil platform to protest against the climate
change loss and damage caused by Shell.
The claim is one of the biggest legal threats against the
Greenpeace network’s ability to campaign in its more than 50-year
history. Campaigners believe the aggressive legal tactics are a
bid to silence growing dissent over chief executive Wael Sawan’s
moves to double down on fossil fuel investment and abandon any
pretence of transition to renewables.
Yeb Saño, executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, has
been personally affected by climate crisis typhoons and
volunteered to be part of the oil platform protest with
Greenpeace International. He is among the activists individually
named in Shell’s legal claim, as he initially attempted to board
the platform and later protested its arrival in a Norwegian
port.
Mr Saño, who has previously acted as lead negotiator for
the Philippines at global climate talks, said: “I have
lived through the devastation caused by Shell and companies like
them. Ten years ago I spoke at COP global climate talks while my
brother was still missing in the fall-out from Super Typhoon
Haiyan.
“Incredibly, he survived, but he helped carry the bodies of 78
innocent people who tragically did not. Shell is trying to
silence my legitimate demands: that it must stop its senseless
and greedy pursuit of fossil fuels and take accountability for
the destruction it is wreaking upon the world.
“I will stand up in court and fight this; and if Shell refuses to
stop drilling, I refuse to stop fighting for climate justice.”
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK,
said: “Under Wael Sawan, Shell’s abandoned any pretence
of good intentions, and is brazenly embracing a sinister strategy
that’s not just risky for shareholders, but completely
devastating for people on the front-lines of the climate crisis.
“Sawan’s ditching green policies, sacking former colleagues from
his renewables division, and he’s gas-lit the world by claiming a
retreat from fossil fuels would be ‘dangerous’. Now he’s trying
to crush Greenpeace’s ability to campaign, and in doing so,
seeking to silence legitimate demands for climate justice and
payment for loss and damage. We need this case to be thrown out
and for Shell to be regulated by the government because it’s
clear Sawan is hell-bent on profit, regardless of human cost.”
The lawsuit is over a peaceful protest which saw six activists
occupy Shell’s Penguins floating production storage and
offloading [FPSO] unit for 13 days, from January 31 to February
12. During that time Shell announced record annual profits of
nearly $40bn.
Activists were calling on the company to stop drilling for new
oil and gas, and instead take responsibility for causing climate
breakdown, and start paying into the climate loss and damage fund
which has been agreed by world leaders at global climate talks.
The Penguins platform is the first new operated vessel for
Shell in the northern North Sea for 30 years. At peak
production the project is expected to yield the equivalent of
45,000 barrels of oil per day, and Shell has suggested it could
open up further areas for exploration.
At the time of the protest Shell and its co-claimant, platform
builder Fluor, claimed they would seek damages upwards of
$120,000.
In correspondence they have said the damages would be over $8m
but they have offered to settle for a reduced amount of $1.4m
damages, and a legal undertaking that all Greenpeace
organisations would agree to never protest on its infrastructure
again, at sea or in port anywhere in the world. If this case were
to go to court, it would come with a risk of legal fees through
the courts process which could amount to further millions.
Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International responded that they
would agree to such a protest ban if Shell agreed to stop
wrecking the climate - by complying with the Netherlands court
order requiring the company to reduce its emissions by 45% by
2030, relative to 2019, across all activities.
Negotiations between the parties have now concluded, and since
November 1 legal costs are mounting, while Greenpeace awaits the
details – known as ‘particulars’ – of Shell’s claim.
Greenpeace UK is asking supporters for emergency donations to help
it fight the case.
