Chiara D'Angelo on the anchor of the Arctic Challenger's support ship.
(Photo: Reese Semanko)
Mar 01, 2016
A climate activist who chained herself to a Shell vessel last year to protest oil drilling in the Arctic argued this week that she was compelled to act to prevent environmental catastrophe.
Chiara D'Angelo, 21, climbed the vessel's anchor chain with a sign that read, "Save the Arctic," and locked her harness to the side of the ship for three days and nights in May 2015 in Bellingham, Washington. She now faces a possible $20,000 fine for crossing the so-called "safety zone" around the ship.
But in a hearing with the Coast Guard on Monday, D'Angelo and her attorney invoked what's known as the "necessity defense," arguing that her actions were far less dangerous than the risks posed by allowing the ship to depart for the Arctic's Chukchi Sea, where the oil giant was poised to undertake "one of the riskiest offshore drilling operations of all time," as D'Angelo told the Bellingham Herald.
Shell had planned to explore for oil in the remote and vulnerable northern waters despite warnings from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that the operation posed a 75 percent chance of a spill, risking the food supply for native Alaskans, who rely on fishing and marine hunting for subsistence.
D'Angelo, supported while on the chain by fellow activists who took turns keeping her company and delivering food and other supplies, told the Herald, "I acted to prevent harm."
"There was a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill in Inupiat harvesting territory," she said. "If you have this disaster there, take out their food source."
Shell's Arctic plans also catalyzed large-scale protests by land, air, and sea last year. The energy giant called off its Arctic crusade "for the foreseeable future" in September 2015, stating that there were not enough indications of oil and gas in the region to justify continued drilling.
Five climate activists charged with blocking an oil train in January used the necessity defense in a groundbreaking case. This marked the first time a U.S. judge allowed the argument in a climate trial.
The defendants were eventually found not guilty of obstruction, avoiding jail time. During the proceedings, jury members clarified that they understood that the activists were trying to raise public awareness about critical issues.
One juror reportedly told them, "Thanks for the education."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
arcticclimate activismcriminal justice systemenvironmentfossil fuelsnecessity defenseoffshore drillingoil drillingoil spilloil trainspeople powersave the arcticshellwashingtonclimate action
A climate activist who chained herself to a Shell vessel last year to protest oil drilling in the Arctic argued this week that she was compelled to act to prevent environmental catastrophe.
Chiara D'Angelo, 21, climbed the vessel's anchor chain with a sign that read, "Save the Arctic," and locked her harness to the side of the ship for three days and nights in May 2015 in Bellingham, Washington. She now faces a possible $20,000 fine for crossing the so-called "safety zone" around the ship.
But in a hearing with the Coast Guard on Monday, D'Angelo and her attorney invoked what's known as the "necessity defense," arguing that her actions were far less dangerous than the risks posed by allowing the ship to depart for the Arctic's Chukchi Sea, where the oil giant was poised to undertake "one of the riskiest offshore drilling operations of all time," as D'Angelo told the Bellingham Herald.
Shell had planned to explore for oil in the remote and vulnerable northern waters despite warnings from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that the operation posed a 75 percent chance of a spill, risking the food supply for native Alaskans, who rely on fishing and marine hunting for subsistence.
D'Angelo, supported while on the chain by fellow activists who took turns keeping her company and delivering food and other supplies, told the Herald, "I acted to prevent harm."
"There was a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill in Inupiat harvesting territory," she said. "If you have this disaster there, take out their food source."
Shell's Arctic plans also catalyzed large-scale protests by land, air, and sea last year. The energy giant called off its Arctic crusade "for the foreseeable future" in September 2015, stating that there were not enough indications of oil and gas in the region to justify continued drilling.
Five climate activists charged with blocking an oil train in January used the necessity defense in a groundbreaking case. This marked the first time a U.S. judge allowed the argument in a climate trial.
The defendants were eventually found not guilty of obstruction, avoiding jail time. During the proceedings, jury members clarified that they understood that the activists were trying to raise public awareness about critical issues.
One juror reportedly told them, "Thanks for the education."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A climate activist who chained herself to a Shell vessel last year to protest oil drilling in the Arctic argued this week that she was compelled to act to prevent environmental catastrophe.
Chiara D'Angelo, 21, climbed the vessel's anchor chain with a sign that read, "Save the Arctic," and locked her harness to the side of the ship for three days and nights in May 2015 in Bellingham, Washington. She now faces a possible $20,000 fine for crossing the so-called "safety zone" around the ship.
But in a hearing with the Coast Guard on Monday, D'Angelo and her attorney invoked what's known as the "necessity defense," arguing that her actions were far less dangerous than the risks posed by allowing the ship to depart for the Arctic's Chukchi Sea, where the oil giant was poised to undertake "one of the riskiest offshore drilling operations of all time," as D'Angelo told the Bellingham Herald.
Shell had planned to explore for oil in the remote and vulnerable northern waters despite warnings from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that the operation posed a 75 percent chance of a spill, risking the food supply for native Alaskans, who rely on fishing and marine hunting for subsistence.
D'Angelo, supported while on the chain by fellow activists who took turns keeping her company and delivering food and other supplies, told the Herald, "I acted to prevent harm."
"There was a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill in Inupiat harvesting territory," she said. "If you have this disaster there, take out their food source."
Shell's Arctic plans also catalyzed large-scale protests by land, air, and sea last year. The energy giant called off its Arctic crusade "for the foreseeable future" in September 2015, stating that there were not enough indications of oil and gas in the region to justify continued drilling.
Five climate activists charged with blocking an oil train in January used the necessity defense in a groundbreaking case. This marked the first time a U.S. judge allowed the argument in a climate trial.
The defendants were eventually found not guilty of obstruction, avoiding jail time. During the proceedings, jury members clarified that they understood that the activists were trying to raise public awareness about critical issues.
One juror reportedly told them, "Thanks for the education."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.