TOM PYLE: Litigation Abroad, Higher Bills At Home

After an American court held Greenpeace accountable for its role in the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests, to the tune of $345 million, the organization is now seeking relief in a Dutch court in an attempt to unwind that judgment. This is not just another legal dispute. It raises a fundamental question about whether companies can rely on American court decisions when committing capital to long-term infrastructure projects that require billions of dollars and years of planning.

If Greenpeace is successful, activist groups gain a pathway to extend infrastructure disputes beyond U.S. courts. This sends a message to energy producers that their projects are not fully protected by American law. If they pursue legal remedies for damages incurred during violent protests, a European court could counteract any damages awarded in an American courtroom. In Greenpeace’s case, the protests included attacks on workers and law enforcement, acts of arson, and online defamation.

Foreign efforts to reopen U.S. court decisions create hesitation at a crucial moment, when the country needs continued investment in supply. Just Energy Transfer alone, the company that operates the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline, is transporting approximately 30% of the nation’s natural gas. That is foundational to the American economy and our national security, and supplies fuel to millions of homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses. As energy demand is projected to rise significantly through 2050, we need companies to invest in large-scale projects to ensure every American has access to an affordable, reliable, and safe source of electricity. Greenpeace taking this case to Europe directly counters this objective. (RELATED: Russian Oil Poised To Flood World Markets As Trump Admin Lifts Sanctions)

Greenpeace understands the stakes of its ambitious attempt yet appears willing to risk American energy security rather than accept responsibility for its role in dangerous protests. This approach strains transatlantic energy relations and creates a more dangerous and costly environment for producers working to bolster domestic production.

At that point, we are no longer talking about cross-border dialogue; we are talking about foreign interests influencing American policy. A Dutch court should not dictate American affairs or require a U.S. company to pay damages beyond what a U.S. court determined. It is not just a question of legality; it is a question of national security. If Europe gains leverage over American energy production through activist litigation, it will strain the fragile global energy trade ecosystem and threaten our domestic supply reliability.

When Russia invaded Ukraine at the start of 2022, it cut oil and gas supplies to the European Union, which had grown dependent on them. One of the world’s wealthiest geopolitical regions suddenly faced soaring electricity and heating costs.

Over 41 million Europeans were unable to keep their homes warm during the winter of 2022. In the United Kingdom alone, nearly 5,000 preventable deaths were associated with cold homes. Many families experienced fuel poverty at levels they had never seen before.

The United States’ energy system cannot be put at risk on behalf of an activist organization attempting to disrupt energy relations with Europe, because that organization is unwilling to pay damages for illegal activity tied to protests it supported. The consequences would not just fall on Energy Transfer. They’d fall on millions of Americans who had no part in those protests.

Energy is not a game to drive clicks or rally supporters; it is far too valuable to economic stability and national security. Greenpeace lost in court and should pay the damages awarded, not run to a foreign court while putting the rest of us at risk. This is not a David-versus-Goliath story. It is a story of protesters who broke the law, jeopardized our energy security, and are still, nearly a decade later, trying to escape the consequences.

Tom Pyle is the President of the American Energy Alliance.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.