From The Center Square

By Chris Woodward

A trial is underway in North Dakota in a lawsuit against Greenpeace over its support for protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Filed by Texas-based Energy Transfer, the lawsuit alleges Greenpeace in 2016 engaged in or supported unlawful behavior by protesters of the pipeline, while also spreading false claims about it. Greenpeace, according to Energy Transfer, spread falsehoods about the pipeline and conspired to escalate what were small, peaceful protests illegal activity that halted the project in 2016.

Energy Transfer – which is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – claims the alleged actions caused more than $100 million in financial difficulties for the pipeline.

Greenpeace denies any wrongdoing, arguing the case is about Americans’ First Amendments rights to free speech and to peacefully protest, and about corporations trying to silence critics.

Energy Transfer told The Center Square that its lawsuit “is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused” the company.

“It is not about free speech,” Energy Transfer said in an emailed statement to The Center Square. “Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that.”

Last week, Greenpeace filed for a change of venue, claiming that the environmental group may not get a fair trial in Morton County, where the trial is being held.

“The Greenpeace defendants have said from the start of this case that it should be heard away from where the events happened,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace, in another statement emailed to The Center Square. “After three motions for a venue change were refused, we now feel compelled to ask the Supreme Court of North Dakota to relieve the local community from the burden of this case and ensure the fairness of the trial cannot be questioned.”

The pipeline was completed in 2017 after several months of delays.

Greenpeace has voiced concerns about the environmental impacts that the Dakota Access Pipeline will have in areas where it is installed. Energy Transfer/Dakota Access Pipeline says that, among other things, safety is its top priority and that it is committed to being a good neighbor, business partner, and valued member of local communities that the energy company says will benefit economically.

For years, oil pipelines have been a political fault line in Canada, with battles over environmental policies, economic development and national energy security. The Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has sent mixed signals – championing climate goals while approving some energy projects like the Trans Mountain Expansion. But now, with a trade war looming over Canada, a surprising shift has occurred: a consensus across the political spectrum in favour of building new pipelines.

And it’s all due to one man: United States President Donald Trump.

Trump’s threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy and 25 percent on other Canadian exports has woken up Ottawa. Previously, Trudeau’s government made decisions that killed off big pipeline projects like Energy East. Bill C-69 was blamed for creating an uncertain regulatory environment that discouraged investment in pipelines.

But now, Liberal ministers are talking about revisiting those projects.

On February 6, Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, a long-time climate crusader, surprised many when he said Canada is too dependent on the U.S. as an oil buyer and suggested Ottawa should consider a pipeline to Eastern Canada to diversify energy exports. He’d made similar comments in September and October 2024 when he said oil demand had peaked and pipelines were unnecessary.

The next day, it was reported that Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne followed Wilkinson’s lead, saying Canada must reassess its energy infrastructure given Trump’s threat. He even suggested Quebec, which has long opposed pipelines, might be open to reconsidering Energy East.

Shortly after, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seized the moment, urging Ottawa to restart talks on national energy infrastructure.

And then on February 9, Champagne again said Quebecers might have a different view on pipelines now that their economic security is at stake.

This is a stunning reversal. Just months ago Wilkinson and other Liberal officials were saying oil demand was declining and Canada should focus on renewables and electrification.

However, is this a real policy shift?

While some senior Liberals are suddenly in favour of pipelines, one key figure has been silent: Mark Carney, the front runner in the Liberal leadership race.

Carney has made climate action a central plank of his campaign, but says he supports the “concept” of an east-west pipeline.

His silence raises a big question: Are the Liberals really in favour of oil pipelines or is this just a reaction to Trump?

Despite Carney, Wilkinson and Champagne’s comments, big industry players remain skeptical. Pipeline projects take years of regulatory approval, billions of investment and political will at both the federal and provincial level. The Trudeau government’s track record has been one of obstacles, not encouragement, for big energy projects.

And some experts say pipeline companies may not be keen to jump back into the fray. TC Energy, the former proponent of Energy East, divested its oil pipeline business in 2023. Would a new pipeline proponent be willing to navigate the regulatory and political minefield that Ottawa itself created?

The political fallout could be immense.

If the Liberals go for pipelines, it will be one of the biggest policy reversals in Canadian energy history. It will also expose deep divisions within the party. Environmental groups and Liberal voters in urban centres will likely rage against such a shift while oil-producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan will remain skeptical of Ottawa’s new enthusiasm.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party, the only federal party that has always been in favour of pipelines, will find itself in an unusual position—watching the Liberals adopt its policies as their own.

In the next few weeks all eyes will be on Carney and the Liberal leadership race. If Carney keeps hedging on pipelines, it will be unclear if this new consensus is real or just political expediency in the face of Trump’s tariffs.

For now Canada’s pipeline debate is no longer about energy or the environment—it’s about sovereignty, trade and survival in an uncertain global economy. Will this consensus last beyond the immediate crisis?