3 ms·
They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring. >
by lkbm 7mo ago
They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring.
> how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?
Alternative possibility: they were actually guilty. Seems likely. The idea that Greenpeace was intentionally spreading misinformation doesn't require a big leap of faith.
- jacquesm 7mo agoUnlike oil companies who would of course never do such a thing.
- b112 7mo agoThe climate can't sue if you lie about it. Companies and people can.
- lkbm 7mo agoThey sure do. They've also been sued for it, too, because it's bad. It's also bad for Greenpeace to do it.
- jacquesm 7mo agoThere is absolutely no way the damage is that large and this seems to be mostly a revenge action by a community in which Greenpeace - or any other environmental organization - would never get a fair trial to begin with.
- terminalshort 7mo agoThe article doesn't mention it, but it could be punitive damages
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo ago> They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring. I think that's not what the article is saying, although I read it that way too at first. Greenpeace USA, the organization whose six employees were on the ground, was found liable for "almost all claims"; it's only Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, their sibling organizations, who were found not to be "responsible for the alleged on-the-ground harms committed by protesters".
- lkbm 7mo agoAh, good catch. I misread.