Post by account_disabled on Feb 17, 2024 2:21:58 GMT -5
Shell is suing Greenpeace for $2.1 million in damages, marking one of the biggest legal challenges in the environmental group's 50-year history, according to The Guardian . The lawsuit, according to energy giant Shell, primarily advocates for the safety of people aboard the oil rig, as it has been boarded by climate protesters to protest the company's oil drilling and extraction activities. However, environmentalists point out that the lawsuit seeks to silence the legitimate protest for climate justice. Shell vs Greenpeace The legal confrontation between Greenpeace and Shell reaches significant proportions, marking another chapter in the fight between oil corporations and climate activists. The root of this conflict lies in the occupation of a floating oil platform by four Greenpeace activists in the north of the Canary Islands. These protesters carried signs demanding that the fossil fuel company "stop drilling and start paying." This direct action was a response to the climate damage that Greenpeace says Shell is inflicting. The impact of Shell's lawsuit against Greenpeace is not limited to financial compensation. The call for an indefinite ban on protests at Shell's global offshore infrastructure raises questions about freedom of expression and the ability of environmental groups to exercise their right to protest. In a broader context, this case adds to the growing tension between large corporations and environmental defenders, who seek to hold companies responsible for environmental, social and economic damage to the planet.
Shell facing justice It is not the first time Middle East Mobile Number List that Shell has faced legal action related to its environmental policies. Prior to this lawsuit, the environmental organization ClientEarth attempted, unsuccessfully, to sue 11 Shell directors at the High Court in London, holding them personally responsible for the company's "fundamentally flawed" climate strategy. However, the court did not support the environmental organization's argument to hold Shell's directors personally liable at that specific time. Additionally, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce emissions from its oil and gas operations by 45% by 2030, as a result of a lawsuit brought by Friends of the Earth along with more than 17,000 co-plaintiffs. Oil companies seek to silence climate demands: Greenpeace Greenpeace, for its part, maintains that Shell is using "aggressive legal tactics" to silence growing dissent over CEO Wael Sawan's decision to step up investments in fossil fuels. Yeb Saño, executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia and one of the activists named in Shell's lawsuit, says the oil company is trying to silence legitimate demands for climate justice. However, Shell's response to Greenpeace's accusations is categorical: the lawsuit is not intended to restrict protest in general, but rather to prevent dangerous activities at sea or in port that could endanger human lives. A Shell spokesperson emphasizes that the safety of protesters is a priority, and that the company and its contractors are entitled to recover significant costs arising from Greenpeace's dangerous actions.
The right to protest is fundamental and we absolutely respect it. "Shell and its contractors are entitled to recover the significant costs of responding to Greenpeace's dangerous actions." Shell spokesperson. The battle for the climate Shell has reported that it has incurred substantial legal costs to obtain two court orders that could prevent future boardings of protesters. In addition, the company has had to mobilize an additional security boat and increase security measures. The company argues that these measures are essential to ensure the safety of protesters and crew, and maintains that Greenpeace's actions raise real safety concerns. Areeba Hamid, co-chief executive of Greenpeace UK, accuses Shell of attempting to stifle Greenpeace's campaigning ability and, in doing so, seeking to silence legitimate demands for climate justice and compensation for loss and damage. Hamid advocates for this case to be dismissed and for the government to regulate Shell, arguing that Sawan's approach is focused on profit, regardless of the human cost. The legal dispute between Shell and Greenpeace highlights the growing tension between large corporations and climate action protests. The outcome of this legal showdown will not only have financial implications but also broader repercussions on the right to protest and corporate accountability in the context of the global climate crisis.
Shell facing justice It is not the first time Middle East Mobile Number List that Shell has faced legal action related to its environmental policies. Prior to this lawsuit, the environmental organization ClientEarth attempted, unsuccessfully, to sue 11 Shell directors at the High Court in London, holding them personally responsible for the company's "fundamentally flawed" climate strategy. However, the court did not support the environmental organization's argument to hold Shell's directors personally liable at that specific time. Additionally, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce emissions from its oil and gas operations by 45% by 2030, as a result of a lawsuit brought by Friends of the Earth along with more than 17,000 co-plaintiffs. Oil companies seek to silence climate demands: Greenpeace Greenpeace, for its part, maintains that Shell is using "aggressive legal tactics" to silence growing dissent over CEO Wael Sawan's decision to step up investments in fossil fuels. Yeb Saño, executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia and one of the activists named in Shell's lawsuit, says the oil company is trying to silence legitimate demands for climate justice. However, Shell's response to Greenpeace's accusations is categorical: the lawsuit is not intended to restrict protest in general, but rather to prevent dangerous activities at sea or in port that could endanger human lives. A Shell spokesperson emphasizes that the safety of protesters is a priority, and that the company and its contractors are entitled to recover significant costs arising from Greenpeace's dangerous actions.
The right to protest is fundamental and we absolutely respect it. "Shell and its contractors are entitled to recover the significant costs of responding to Greenpeace's dangerous actions." Shell spokesperson. The battle for the climate Shell has reported that it has incurred substantial legal costs to obtain two court orders that could prevent future boardings of protesters. In addition, the company has had to mobilize an additional security boat and increase security measures. The company argues that these measures are essential to ensure the safety of protesters and crew, and maintains that Greenpeace's actions raise real safety concerns. Areeba Hamid, co-chief executive of Greenpeace UK, accuses Shell of attempting to stifle Greenpeace's campaigning ability and, in doing so, seeking to silence legitimate demands for climate justice and compensation for loss and damage. Hamid advocates for this case to be dismissed and for the government to regulate Shell, arguing that Sawan's approach is focused on profit, regardless of the human cost. The legal dispute between Shell and Greenpeace highlights the growing tension between large corporations and climate action protests. The outcome of this legal showdown will not only have financial implications but also broader repercussions on the right to protest and corporate accountability in the context of the global climate crisis.