iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Philip Radford

GET UPDATES FROM Philip Radford
 

Shell Tramples Our Civil Rights -- to Do More Dangerous Drilling

Posted: 03/20/2012 8:40 pm

Yesterday, in a small courtroom in Alaska, David met Goliath once again. Greenpeace USA's small team of lawyers came face to face with representatives from Shell, the multinational oil company seeking one of the broadest legal injunctions ever sought against an entirely peaceful environmental group. The judge's decision will resonate far beyond Anchorage and help determine the future of activism in this country.

A little backstory is needed here. In a desperate attempt to shore up its proven reserves, Shell is betting the ranch on new drilling in Arctic waters. Its executives purr reassuringly about 'energy independence,' as if one more hit of the black stuff will be enough to lower gas prices, ease our financial pain and bring back the dreamy nineties. Rather than seeing melting sea ice for what it really is -- a flashing warning sign of continental proportions -- this increasingly desperate company wants to drill for more of the fossil fuel that is causing the problem in the first place.

Forget the remoteness, fierce storms, unique species, or the handful of spill response vessels for a second. Instead close your eyes, breathe deeply, and think about what it will mean to reflect that a 21st-century company chose to put its finest engineers on a project that actually made the climate problem worse. While storms battered our coastlines and drought plagued our farmers, Shell squeezed out the last drops of oil and ignored clean energy like it was a passing fad.

As you might have guessed, Greenpeace is pretty much against the gig. Our supporters across the world have sent over 250,000 emails to Shell's executives pointing out the painful irony in their position. The actor Lucy Lawless joined Greenpeace New Zealand to prevent one of their Arctic drillships from leaving port for the long trip to Alaska. And that's when Shell decided to pull out the big guns.

Our offices in Alaska, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. were served with copies of the lawsuit simultaneously. After a quick scan our lawyers couldn't believe the scope of these documents. Shell was basing much of its complaint against Greenpeace USA on an activity 6,000 miles away conducted by Greenpeace New Zealand. The company proposed a restraining order covering anyone acting "in concert" with Greenpeace from "tortiously or illegally interfering with Shell's property" anywhere in the U.S. Never mind that there are already laws against interference, trespass or nuisance. What Shell wanted was an extraordinary legal hammer that could have been dropped on any one of our 500,000 email subscribers who chose to act a little more robustly than the company would have liked.

The judge rejected the bulk of this draconian request, instead issuing a temporary restraining order that applies to Shell's drilling rigs and support vessels. But today the company is back in court, asking for an injunction that would once again widen the suit to include 80-year-old grandmothers in Idaho alongside students fighting for their future with Greenpeace.

It's a mark of how effective corporations have become that in modern America protest is now seen as a dirty word. Today, any challenge to the dominant business model is condemned as unpatriotic, a slur on Milton Friedman's great legacy. Lest we forget, an inefficient economy driven by oil was not part of the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in the national anthem. The 1% has used its power to create the illusion that there is only one way to power America's greatness and restore the country to its proper place in the world. Somewhere along the way fossil fuels have become a pillar of democracy instead of what they really are -- an enemy of the state.

But something is changing. When companies like Shell use expensive and frivolous lawsuits to silence opposition to their plans, people take notice. They may have all the money in the world but there are now hundreds of thousands of people who see the folly in this doomed enterprise. Arctic drilling is one of the great mistakes of our age and it will not be allowed to happen. Whatever happens in court, Greenpeace will continue to oppose Shell's plans peacefully and vigorously because we, the people, have truth on our side. That's something even billionaire oil companies can't buy.

Philip Radford is Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.

 

Follow Philip Radford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Phil_Radford

 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:38 PM on 03/21/2012
This article is filled with lie after lie after lie. Climate change is a normal process. The earth has gone through something like 4 ice ages long before any humans were here. Did drilling for oil or driving our cars cause this? No. I support drilling for oil in my state and off of our coast. I live in Alaska and if you don't, your opinion means nothing. Stay out of our business and worry about your own state.
photo
Bianca Befana
...Teach your children well...
09:33 AM on 03/21/2012
This article should be on the front page. Only three comments for such an important issue? Sad. When are we going to wake up? It's Spring of 2012...Happy Ostara everyone. Will we have another one? We need to wake up & fast. The Earth is fighting back & is protecting herself from what's left of this planet we've trashed. Think about it...more volcano eruptions, several earthquakes, tsunami's...etc. How do we answer the question posed by our children as they ask us Why? Why did we allowed this to happen? BTW...very brave-less of Shell & all their lawyers...to take on Greenpeace in Alaska in a small courtroom, probably w/out camera's too. Join Greenpeace & help take a stand against the desecration we keep heaping on our planet. Peace! BB
06:18 AM on 03/21/2012
There is alternatives to oil and there is to dangerous to drill in the artic. If there is an katastrof its impact is wider than in other places cause the ice.
06:13 AM on 03/21/2012
There is alternatives to oil drilling . if there is a Catastrof theres no going back. there isnt much oil upp there. Its madness to drill there.
03:54 PM on 03/21/2012
You are so wrong. There is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil there. And there is absolutely no alternative to drilling for oil.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
05:37 AM on 03/21/2012
Shell is an oil company. While they are interested in alternative energy, their customers seem not to be.

They have expertise in exploring and developing new oil fields. Unless this is made illegal or commercially unacceptable, then they will probably continue to do so, or else they will just be throwing away skills they have built up.

The bigger picture of more sustainable provision of energy is a crucial part of this story.
11:24 AM on 03/21/2012
You could have said just a couple of years ago that BP has the expertise in developing new oil fields and look how that turned out. While the engineers employed by these companies may be the best in the business it really doesn't matter when the only real goal of any oil company is to maximize profits and shareholder equity. They are more interested in boosting their " proven reserves" of oil carried on their balance sheets and obtaining tax breaks for development from the Federal government than they are in developing alternative energy, which is not profitable for them now. However you are correct in saying that they will only stop when drilling becomes economically unacceptable. A carbon fee and dividend system would go a long way in accomplishing this.
02:12 PM on 03/21/2012
Shell promotes itself as a diversified energy company but they ARE NOT interested in alternative energy and they won't be until it becomes profitable for them. The profits they, as well as all other fossil fuel companies, reap while they are given the freedom to treat the resources that belong to us all (air, land, oceans)as garbage dumps, will ensure that they will not change their business practices. Ending oil subsidies and implementing a carbon fee and dividend program that would establish a price for carbon based fuels that reflects their true cost while returning the fees collected to citizens to offset higher costs of certain products, are two steps that would encourage a shift away from oil exploration.