Greenpeace, which was only tangentially involved in the Standing Rock protests, has been slapped with a $666 million bill for damages...despite the fact that the Dakota Access Pipeline was built, and has been making Energy Transfer millions of dollars for years. How did we get here? Cody Hall, an Indigenous water protector who was a key figure during the Standing Rock protests and was initially also targeted in Energy Transfer's suit, walks us through how things went down back in 2016 and 2017, and where this suit began.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
--------
42:43
--------
42:43
New Drilled Season: SLAPP'd
This season on Drilled, an Indigenous nation fighting for its water, an international environmental movement finding its voice, and an industry attempting to crush its political opposition.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
--------
3:39
--------
3:39
New Evidence and an Update on U.S. Climate Cases
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists compiles in one place all the documentary evidence on the role of fossil fuel companies in obstructing climate policy. We walk through the latest, and get an update on climate cases in the U.S.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
--------
27:00
--------
27:00
The Massive Climate Case that Shell Both Won and Lost, and What It Means for the Future of Global Climate Litigation
In November, a Dutch court ruled in Shell's favor on an appeal in a big international climate case. It got loads of headlines around the world, but it wasn't quite the win for Shell that a lot of media coverage has made it out to be. Although it walked back some things, the court reaffirmed a key component of the original ruling: that Shell is legally required to reduce its global emissions.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
--------
20:43
--------
20:43
New Research Shows the Clean Air Act Always Intended to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that when the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate science was “in its infancy,” implying that government officials could never have intended for the legislation to cover the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2022, SCOTUS doubled down on that idea, ruling in West Virginia v EPA that since the Clean Air Act didn't explicitly talk about climate change, the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Now, new historical evidence unearthed by a team of Harvard University researchers led by Naomi Oreskes calls the court's understanding of the history of climate science into question, which could have major implications for the government's ability to regulate climate-changing emissions.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Portugal