More than 30 public figures including Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton and Greta Thunberg have written to Shell criticising its “callous and vindictive” lawsuit against Greenpeace after activists occupied a moving oil platform last year.
In one of the biggest legal threats in the environmental charity’s 50-year history, Shell is suing it for $1m (£790,000) in damages, with costs that could run into the millions.
The move follows a protest in January last year in which four Greenpeace activists boarded a platform north of the Canary Islands that was being transported to the Shetland Islands, holding signs stating: “Stop drilling – start paying.”
Monday’s letter , signed by dozens of prominent musicians, activists, and lawyers as well as more than 100,000 members of the public, calls on Shell to respect the right to protest.
OMG. Is money the only thing that Shell has on their mind ?
… yeah? Thats kind of the entire basis of our economy.
It fuckin’ sucks, but not exactly revolutionary information.
There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs. After Shell and Exxon ignored the risks in Groningen for years, they recently wanted money from the Dutch government. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-govt-shell-exxon-ignored-groningen-risks-years-inquiry-finds-2023-02-24/
There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs.
True. Unfortunately, the latter is the norm when it comes to corporations in general and ESPECIALLY when it comes to industries that shouldn’t even exist anymore in the first place, such as the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.
There is a difference between making money to survive as a human being and going for profit at all costs.
Yes, the former is a necessity because of the machinations of those striving for the latter.
You’re talking about a Dutch firm (Shell is founded on colonial heritage through the Biliton company) which left the Netherlands after a very generous tax ruling was passed there, who are now based in post-brexit UK. I hope you are sarcastically asking this.
Greenpeace are problematic enough in their own right for so many reasons and really don’t need saving, and Shell are doing so much worse elsewhere, this seems like such a poor choice of where to invest time energy and influence…
and Shell are doing so much worse elsewhere
you’ve got all the pieces but havent put it together yet. Shell, and every fossil fuel business, are doing awful things all the time all around the world. Greenpeace is opposing them.
