Enemies of Energy: Greenpeace

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center. The page for the full report is here: Enemies of Energy.

***

The most recent publicly available IRS filings from Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Fund show combined net assets of negative $496.4 million. As nonprofits go, that’s a lot of not profiting! Just one year earlier the pair reported positive combined net assets of $44 million. [i] [ii]

Claiming a half-billion-dollar loss in one year is particularly striking for a couple of NGOs that reported 2024 revenue of just $38.6 million for Greenpeace and $26.3 million for the Greenpeace Fund. (Unlike net assets, annual revenue figures cannot be combined because—as is common in these arrangements—the 2024 filing for Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit, lists $16.3 million in grants sent to Greenpeace, the 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofit, and it is not clear how similar asset transfers from previous reporting periods continue to impact the 2024 reports). [iii]

In an October 2025 report for the Capital Research Center, Robert Stilson summarized the reason for the financial challenges at Greenpeace: [iv]

In 2019, Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in state court for its role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and earlier this year a North Dakota jury found the 501(c)(4) nonprofit Greenpeace, its affiliated 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund, and the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International liable for a combined $667 million.

[. . .]

Greenpeace was found liable for (among other things) trespass, defamation, conversion, and tortious interference with business. The facts as alleged, and evidently accepted by the jury, are remarkable. Energy Transfer’s amended complaint detailed what it called “violent attacks against Plaintiffs’ employees and property, soliciting money for and providing funding to support these illegal attacks, inciting protests to disrupt construction, and a vast, malicious publicity campaign against Energy Transfer and Dakota Access.” A resource published by the state of North Dakota and quoted in the complaint described the “brutality…committed by violent protesters who use[d] improvised explosive devices to attack police, use[d] hacked information to threaten officers and their families, and use[d] weapons to kill livestock, harming farmers and ranchers.”  ^[v]

A judge has since reduced the combined damage award to $345 million. Energy Transfer announced it would appeal to have the full damages reinstated, while Greenpeace is seeking a new trial, hoping to avoid the judgement entirely. But even if the smaller award stands, that’s still roughly half a dozen years of the Greenpeace movement’s combined annual revenue and by their own admission it’s not clear they can survive if they have to pay up. [vi]

Both Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Fund’s 2024 IRS filings note the Energy Transfer lawsuit as the reason for reporting the huge deficits. The filings also note that the Greenpeace nonprofits do “not have sufficient liquidity to satisfy the judgement or to continue normal operations if the judgement is enforced” and that their “management has concluded that there is substantial doubt” regarding whether the NGOs will “continue as a going concern” if payment is demanded. ^[vii]

Greenpeace hasn’t let this existential crisis impede its fight with Energy Transfer. In December 2025, still on the hook for $345 million in un-neighborly damages for violations against the energy firm, Greenpeace released a research report with this ironic title: “Bad Neighbor: Energy Transfer’s Pattern of Pollution and Violations.” [viii]

Publicity stunts both controversial and destructive have been the Greenpeace brand since it was founded. In the 1970s and 80s the group built its reputation by disrupting nuclear weapons tests. Greenpeace demonstrators in Australia destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat in July 2011, and in January 2023 Greenpeace activists trespassed onto a boat owned by Shell to protest the firm’s oil drilling in the Atlantic. The Shell stunt put Greenpeace on the losing end of a $382,000 legal judgment. ^[ix] [x] [xi]

There is also a long list of conduct that was more disruptive than destructive. For example, nearly all anti-energy NGOs oppose nuclear energy, but few behave as stridently as Greenpeace. In December 2017, Greenpeace organized a protest involving hundreds of demonstrators in France to demand permanent closure of the nation’s world-leading fleet of commercial nuclear reactors. It was a typically audacious choice of targets for Greenpeace, given that the French obtain a larger percentage of their primary energy from emissions-free nuclear power than any of the rich world (i.e.: G8 member) economies, and as a result France has lower CO₂emissions per-capita than any of them. [xii] [xiii]

But it is both too easy and inaccurate to presume Greenpeace’s mischief is on the fringe of the anti-energy movement. Greenpeace has many prominent and influential allies willing to endorse its troublemaking. The Stilson report explained: ^[xiv]

Many groups also publicly came out in support of Greenpeace and its actions, as evidenced by an open letter of support signed by more than 400 groups and “hundreds of thousands of individuals,” including public figures such as Alec Baldwin, Billie Eilish, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, James Cromwell, and Shailene Woodley. Curiously believing that “if enough of us speak out, we can stop this abusive lawsuit,” the letter declared formal “solidarity with Greenpeace against Energy Transfer’s meritless $300 million lawsuit,” which it called “a blatant attempt to silence legitimate work to protect people and our planet.”

Accordingly, it can be concluded that the signatories considered the conduct detailed above, for which a jury ultimately found Greenpeace liable, to be “legitimate.” ^[xv]

Some of the signatories identified included the  Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Amnesty International USA, Global Citizen, the Union of Concerned Scientists , the Center for Biological Diversity, at least four projects of the Tides Center or the affiliated Tides Advocacy, and four projects of the Earth Island Institute. ^[xvi]

As measured by revenue and assets, Greenpeace isn’t one of the largest anti-energy NGOs. But the Dakota Access Pipeline protest, the extraordinary damage award from same, and the 400-plus allies willing to endorse the bad behavior all demonstrate that Greenpeace is clearly one of the most influential.

PDF hyperlink to full report

Endnotes

[i] Greenpeace Inc. (52-1541501). ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521541501

[ii] Greenpeace Fund Inc. (EIN: 95-3313195). ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953313195

[iii] Greenpeace Fund Inc. (EIN: 95-3313195). 2024 IRS Form 990. Covering year ending December 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953313195/202503179349303885/full

Greenpeace Inc. (EIN: 52-1541501). 2024 IRS Form 990. Covering year ending December 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521541501/202543179349305154/full

[iv] Stilson, Robert. “Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests.” Capital Research Center. October 20, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/greenpeace-nonprofits-and-illegal-protests/

[v] Stilson, Robert. “Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests.” Capital Research Center. October 20, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/greenpeace-nonprofits-and-illegal-protests/

[vi] “Judge says Greenpeace must pay $345 million in pipeline lawsuit, cutting jury amount nearly in half.” Associated Press. October 29, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/10/29/nation/judge-says-greenpeace-must-pay-345-million-in-pipeline-lawsuit-cutting-jury-amount-nearly-in-half/

[vii] Greenpeace Fund Inc. (EIN: 95-3313195). 2024 IRS Form 990. Covering year ending December 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/953313195/202503179349303885/full

Greenpeace Inc. (EIN: 52-1541501). 2024 IRS Form 990. Covering year ending December 2024. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521541501/202543179349305154/full

[viii] “Bad Neighbor: Energy Transfer’s Pattern of Pollution and Violations.” Greenpeace. December 10, 2025. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/bad-neighbor-energy-transfers-pattern-of-pollution-and-violations/

[ix] “Greenpeace destroys GM wheat.” ABC (Australia). July 14, 2011. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-14/20110714-greenpeace-gm-protest/2794272

[x] Wittner, Lawrence “A Peace Ship’s Challenge To Nukes”. April 10, 2014. ConsortiumNews. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/10/a-peace-ships-challenge-to-nukes/.

[xi] “Shell settles lawsuit against Greenpeace over activists boarding oil vessel.” December 10, 2024. Reuters. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/legal/shell-settles-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-over-activists-boarding-oil-vessel-2024-12-10/

[xii] Rush, Claire. “French anti-nuclear activists mark Fukishima anniversary.” RFI. December 3, 2017. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20170312-six-years-after-fukushima-anti-nuclear-activists-protest-france

[xiii] “G8 Countries 2026.” World Population Review. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/g8-countries

“CO₂ emissions per capita, 2024.” Our World in Data. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?tab=map&facet=none&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita&country=CHN~USA~IND~GBR~OWID_WRL

[xiv] Stilson, Robert. “Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests.” Capital Research Center. October 20, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/greenpeace-nonprofits-and-illegal-protests/

[xv] Stilson, Robert. “Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests.” Capital Research Center. October 20, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/greenpeace-nonprofits-and-illegal-protests/

[xvi] Stilson, Robert. “Greenpeace, nonprofits, and illegal protests.” Capital Research Center. October 20, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2026. https://capitalresearch.org/article/greenpeace-nonprofits-and-illegal-protests/