Skip to main content

View Diary: How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, because it's dangerous and illegal activity (4+ / 0-)

    Look, Shell would not have gotten the injunction if it was just inconvenient.  If you read the opinion, as in all injunction matters, Shell had to show not only that it was likely to succeed on the merits (that forcibly boarding its vessels and rigs in the open water was illegal and/or tortious) but ALSO that it would suffer irreparable harm -- that there would not be an adequate remedy if Shell waited, they did forcibly boarded the vessels and rigs, and then sued for money.  If it can be remedied with money, it's not irreparable harm.  The reason the court found there was irreparable harm is because the actions enjoined were dangerous and put people's lives at stake, as well as increased the risk of environmental damage from the rigs they were interfering with:  

    2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
    The district court concluded that Shell demonstrated a
    likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because “illegal or tortious efforts to board or interfere with [its] vessels would be likely to present unacceptable risks to human life, property and the environment.” Shell Offshore, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 851 (internal quotation marks omitted). In  support of these findings, the court considered evidence that actions of the sort undertaken by Greenpeace activists against Shell vessels in New Zealand, Finland, and Greenland pose risks to the safetyof activists and vessel occupants alike. The court also found – and Greenpeace USA does not dispute – that “if Greenpeace USA successfully disrupted Shell’s operation, calculating the amount of economic harm would be very difficult.” Id.

    Greenpeace USA offers nothing beyond conclusory
    statements and case summaries in support of its one-sentence argument that the “likelihood of future injury is speculative and cannot be based on matters that occurred in 1997, or that 8 involved entities that are not Greenpeace USA.” The record provides ample support for the conclusion that Greenpeace USA has either undertaken directly, or embraced as its own, tactics that include forcible e boarding of vessels at sea and the use of human beings as impediments to drilling operations. We find  it too plain for debate that such tactics at minimum pose a serious risk of harm to human life, particularly if attempted in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean, and that such harm could find no adequate remedy at law.

    •  I love it, Shell arguing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, Words In Action

      that they should be able to stop something because the results can't be adequately remedied with money. The irony hurts.

      Thank you for the clarification though.

      It's double plus illegal because the potential results can't be fixed with money.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:44:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Irony? Because people can get killed (4+ / 0-)

        on offshore rigs?  

        That's irony?  

        When people die, they can't be compensated through money.  That's "irreparable harm."  That's what justifies an injunction.  Because if someone is killed because these people are trying to force their way onto a vessel or rig in the middle of the ocean, money can't adequately compensate for that.    

        Offshore rigs are inherently dangerous environments.  People trying to force their way onto those rigs and and trying to physically disrupt what's going on makes that particular vessel or rig situation more dangerous, and make it more likely people on that vessel or rig will get hurt or die.  
         

        •  No Irony because their actions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action, burlydee, KenBee

          are irreparably damaging the world for generations to come and they make money off of it.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:04:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fine. And if you want them to stop, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, CalGal47

            you don't use methods that put the lives and safety of people in danger.  

            •  Yes, and they've set it up (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, burlydee

              so that there's no effective way to stop it that doesn't include direct action against their construction.

              Convenient, isn't it.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:17:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How does direct action... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, samddobermann

                ...against their construction stop it?  

                Seems like with the money they stand to make, they can afford to fix anything you can break.

                •  That's why you keep doing it (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Words In Action, burlydee, KenBee

                  We have managed to stop the clear cutting of old growth redwoods here in California for more than a decade using these methods. It's not breaking things that they're trying to stop, it's getting in the way. At least with Keystone XL.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:36:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Especially because there are so many willing to (0+ / 0-)

                  Let it be so, if not actively helping it be so. So very many who otherwise claim to be on the good side, protecting the vulnerable, and not just people.

                  But they aren't.

                  Add the median effective tax rate, healthcare costs (20%?), education costs, and other things guaranteed in Denmark & Sweden, we pay MORE for LESS. Somebody's gotta pay the billionaires. They don't grow on trees. ☮ ♥ ☺

                  by Words In Action on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:14:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Why don't you do something (0+ / 0-)

            besides repeating your claims ad infinitem? How about getting with an attorney and try to get an injunction against the oil companies including the tar sands folks on the grounds of the irreparable harm to the planet?

            Or run for office. I would suggest start small.

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:38:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site