By Debra Wirth
In an important victory for the environmental and other progressive movements, BHP Petroleum announced late on April 26 that it has dropped its court action against Greenpeace. Had it gone ahead, the suit would have threatened many forms of political activity.
The action was initially threatened in March, when Greenpeace's flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, prevented the vessel Western Odyssey from conducting seismic testing off the coast of Victoria as part of a search for oil.
Greenpeace was concerned that the testing would affect the endangered southern right whale, which comes to the waters off Warrnambool each year to calve. Greenpeace also questioned the validity of the First World's continuing dependence on oil as its primary energy source. The burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to the build-up of greenhouse gases.
The Western Odyssey was hired by BHP Petroleum to conduct the testing. The Federal Court action against Greenpeace sought damages, well in to six figures according to some reports, because the ship was prevented from testing for two days by the protest action. The case had ominous implications for the future of groups seeking environmental and social change.
According to Paul Gilding, executive director of Greenpeace Australia, who spoke to Green Left before the action was dropped, BHP was not alone in its attack on Greenpeace.
Right-wing offensive
"There is no doubt in our minds that this is a concerted effort by the right wing in society. We have had a number of attacks on us recently by right-wing think-tanks like the Institute of Public Affairs. We've had Senator Walsh getting up in Parliament House in a press conference and saying that he hopes Greenpeace is sued and goes bankrupt", Gilding said.
"This is not happening in isolation, it is part of a general push by the far right to attack the power and influence of the environment movement because they obviously see it as a threat."
Gilding feels that Greenpeace in particular is seen as dangerous because many of its protest actions are directed against big businesses which pump their toxic waste into the environment.
Three very widely publicised "exposures" carried out by Greenpeace recently had especially inspired the wrath of big business and its friends. Greenpeace discovered that the BHP Port Kembla steelworks was illegally dumping toxic waste. It revealed that Caltex in Sydney was spewing waste into the ocean via an underground pipeline. Greenpeace also exposed the illegal discharging of waste by a Melbourne pesticide company, Newfarm.
Concerning the seismic testing and oil exploration off the Victorian coast, Gilding outlined Greenpeace's worries: "We have concerns about and concerns about our consumption of oil — consumption of oil because of impacts on the environment through fossil fuel use and the build-up of greenhouse gases.
"In the case of Warrnambool, the marine environment is being threatened. It is the calving ground of an endangered whale. So that ties into our wider concerns for protecting the marine environment in total."
BHP apparently did not go into the possible impacts seismic testing would have on the whales and the environment. However, the company must have some idea of the extent of concern in the general community on matters such as these to feel threatened enough by Greenpeace's protest to take out a federal court action.
Trades Practices Act
Greenpeace does, Gilding believes, pose a threat to big industry. However, he also thinks there are good companies and bad companies. Some of the companies Greenpeace has dealt with are quite genuine about wanting to change practices which are damaging the environment. Other, and Gilding counts BHP among these, "see the solution to destroy the organisations that are exposing their activities, as opposed to actually solving the problems in the first place".
BHP intended to use Section 45B of the Trades Practices Act to sue Greenpeace. According to Gilding, this legislation "has certainly been used against unions taking action on behalf of the environment, but not against an organisation like us before".
The implications would have been far reaching. "Certainly it appears possible that this legislation could be used to stop virtually any direct action, not only by environment groups but by any social change groups of any sort throughout the country if that action is going to affect business."
BHP has not addressed any of the concerns Greenpeace raised about the effect its seismic testing was having or the issue of less environmentally destructive energy sources. Instead it seemed intent on basing its whole case on its loss of profits, as if that was the only "right" that was being infringed.
Gilding explained what BHP is saying about the whales: "They take the rather absurd position that the southern right isn't being affected by the seismic testing program because it is only carried out during the non-breeding season.
"But that ignores two critically important factors. One is that there is a whole variety of marine life in the area, including other sorts of whales that do pass through that region.
"The most important factor it ignores is that, if they find oil, they are going to be drilling for it and extracting it 12 months of the year. And that means drilling rigs, it means possible pipelines across the seabed, it certainly means drilling holes in the ocean floor. They have totally ignored those factors and given no response at all."
Won't be intimidated
Despite BHP's behaviour, Gilding thinks environmentalists have to continue to hope they can get through to big business about environmental protection. But he added that he felt BHP see the environment as nothing more than an impediment to profits.Greenpeace doesn't intend to modify its stance as a result of the threat of lawsuits. According to Gilding, "It will have no impact on the frequency or the type of actions which we undertake. Certainly we'll focus a lot more of our attention towards business — this is inevitable.
"We will most definitely not be intimidated into taking a softer line, in fact quite the contrary: we will be inclined towards pointing out to the public and to the business community that we won't be intimidated by court cases."
Gilding told Green Left before BHP withdrew its court action that Greenpeace intended to fight and win the case to avoid the precedent of big companies being given a licence to do as much damage as they thought necessary in order to make a profit.
"We see the responsibility that we as Greenpeace hold to the rest of the environment movement in particular but also to other social change organisations ... It's not just about the southern right whale, it's not even just about the immediate impact of offshore oil exploration, it's about the right of environment groups to organise and protest and the right of the community to stand up and be counted when it comes to companies that are damaging all of our futures".