Quantcast

Anti-Protest Legislation Is Threatening Our Climate

Insights + Opinion
Standing Rock Supporters at the City Center Plaza of San Francisco in 2016. The protest was one of many in a global day of action against the Dakota Access Pipeline calling on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cancel the permit for the project. Protests like these, which are vital to ensuring a future we can live in are at stake with these threatening legislative trends. Michael Short / Greenpeace

By Maggie Ellinger-Locke

We only have about a decade to reverse course on the climate crisis. Activism opposing fossil fuel pipelines is needed more than ever. But activists are facing threats to their right to protest in state legislatures across the country. Lawmakers are introducing legislation to restrict the right to protest. These bills are often modeled on resolutions drafted by companies and passed through groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the secretive group of corporate lobbyists trying to rewrite state laws to benefit corporations over people, and are usually supported by law enforcement groups. Advocates are fighting back, urging elected officials to vote against these bills. But even the mere introduction of these bills has the power to chill speech and curtail activism.


The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law has been tracking these bills where you can see nearly 100 have been introduced, so far.

The bills are not seeking to target protest generally, they are much more sneaky than that. Let me break it down.

There are several categories of bills that have been introduced and in some cases, enacted: anti-boycott legislation, bills that limit collective bargaining, bills that increase criminal penalties for protests against fossil fuel pipelines, bills that enhance criminal penalties for highway shut down protests, bills restricting the rights of students to oppose hate speech college campuses, and more.

Each category of bills attempts to criminalize a particular movement tactic, often to increase criminal penalties for already illegal conduct.

Here's how:

The trend emerged in 2015 and was first used against the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement in support of the Palestinian rights. Anti-boycott legislation has been introduced, and in some cases enacted, on the federal level and in all but nine states. Another example is following large wildcat strikes in several states, bills have been introduced to limit the collective bargaining rights of public sector teachers unions. Bills targeting campus speech have been filed in response to student protests against white supremacists. And anti-mask wearing laws — which historically were designed to target the Klan — are now used to target anti-fascists.

But this was just the beginning.

By far the largest category of bills is designed to impact the Movement for Black Lives, which has used highway protests as one of its most successful tactics. Lawmakers introduced legislation that would increase penalties for these protests, and even bills that would remove liability for drivers who hit such protesters with their car. Thus far no anti-liability bills have actually been enacted, but this is hardly a victory, as introducing these bills discourages people from getting involved in the fight for racial justice.

And climate and anti-pipeline activists are also at risk. Fossil fuel pipeline protests, like we saw at Standing Rock and elsewhere, have been another target of those interested in passing these bills. The bills claim to protect "critical infrastructure" but are actually used to criminalize Water Protectors and environmental activism. The first of these bills was introduced and enacted in Oklahoma in 2017, a state with significant oil and gas interests, and the second largest Indigenous population in the country. When voting on these laws, Oklahoma legislators made clear that these bills were a direct response to pipeline protests.

Since that time, these bills have been introduced in nearly two dozen states, and enacted in five, though several more states are currently considering these bills.

Generally, critical infrastructure bills share several common elements. (1) They create new criminal penalties for already illegal conduct — for example, turning misdemeanor trespass (a common charge for civil disobedience) into a felony. (2) They broadly redefine the term "critical infrastructure" to include everything from cell phone towers to trucking terminals; far greater than the fossil fuel pipelines the bills purport to protect. (3) The bills also seek to create liability for organizations that support protesters by treating such support as a criminal conspiracy.

We've seen this latter element play out in another form: strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), like the one Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, brought against Greenpeace offices and others. The original lawsuit filed against Greenpeace sought 900 million dollars in treble (triple) damages under RICO, but a federal court recently dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice.

Under these new laws, the punitive fine organizations face can be as much as ten times the amount an individual might face. Energy Transfer is one of several companies that has been lobbying for these bills. The American Petroleum Institute — the lobbying arm of the industry — is also behind much of this.

We've got just over a decade to curb the worst effects of climate change. At a time where climate action is needed more than ever, our lawmakers must say no to fossil fuels and work to keep them in the ground. This session critical infrastructure bills have been introduced in 13 states, primarily in the Midwest. If you live in one of these states, contact your lawmakers and ask them to vote no. And let your friends and family know they can make a difference by speaking out. Time is running out. Take action and resist these attempts to silence dissent.

    Maggie Ellinger-Locke is a staff attorney at Greenpeace USA.

    EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

    We need our government to do everything it can to stop PFAS contamination and exposure from wreaking havoc in communities across the country. LuAnn Hun / Unsplash

    By Genna Reed

    The EPA announced last week that it is issuing a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment to set an enforceable drinking water standard to two of the most common and well-studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS.

    This decision is based on three criteria:

    1. PFOA and PFOS have an adverse effect on public health
    2. PFOA and PFOS occur in drinking water often enough and at levels of public health concern;
    3. regulation of PFOA and PFOS is a meaningful opportunity for reducing the health risk to those served by public water systems.
    Read More
    Charging EVs in Stockholm: But where does a dead battery go? Ranjithsiji / Wikimedia Commons

    By Kieran Cooke

    Driving an electric-powered vehicle (EV) rather than one reliant on fossil fuels is a key way to tackle climate change and improve air quality — but it does leave the old batteries behind as a nasty residue.

    Read More
    Sponsored
    U.S. Secretary of the Treasure Steven Mnuchin arrives for a welcome dinner at the Murabba Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Feb. 22, 2020 during the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting. FAYEZ NURELDINE / AFP via Getty Images

    Finance ministers from the 20 largest economies agreed to add a scant mention of the climate crisis in its final communiqué in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Sunday, but they stopped short of calling it a major economic risk, as Reuters reported. It was the first time the G20 has mentioned the climate crisis in its final communiqué since Donald Trump became president in 2017.

    Read More
    Aerial view of Parque da Cachoeira, which suffered the January 2019 dam collapse, in Brumadinho, state of Minas Gerais, Brazil — one of the country's worst industrial accidents that left 270 people dead. Millions of tons of toxic mining waste engulfed houses, farms and waterways, devastating the mineral-rich region. DOUGLAS MAGNO / AFP / Getty Images

    By Christopher Sergeant, Julian D. Olden

    Scars from large mining operations are permanently etched across the landscapes of the world. The environmental damage and human health hazards that these activities create may be both severe and irreversible.

    Read More
    Participants of the climate demonstration Fridays for Future walk through Hamburg, Germany on Feb. 21, 2020. Axel Heimken / picture alliance via Getty Images

    By Andrea Germanos

    U.S.-based youth climate activists on Friday drew attention to the climate protest in Hamburg, Germany, where organizers said roughly 60,000 people took part, and hoped that Americans took inspiration from their European counterparts.

    Read More