By Shayne Cytrynbaum ‘25 Environmental activists have succeeded in pressuring many major banks and insurers to end support for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which they believe puts profits over the planet. EACOP is a petroleum megaproject being constructed in Uganda and Tanzania intended to transport 216,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Uganda’s oil fields near Lake Albert to the Tanzanian port city of Tanga. Four fossil fuel corporations split the ownership of EACOP: the French energy giant TotalEnergies (62%), the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (8%), the Uganda National Pipeline Company (15%) and the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (15%).
While its funders argue that the pipeline could provide valuable oil wealth for all parties involved, however activists around the world believe that it would cause undue harm to the people, economy, nature and climate of East Africa. Due to recent protests by the #StopEACOP campaign, as well as environmental activist groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, many key banks have ended funding for the pipeline, including Santander, CitiBank, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, as well as insurers like Allianz, AEGIS London and Canopius Group. The EACOP project has also been officially condemned by the European Parliament, which passed a motion expressing “its grave concern about the human rights violations in Uganda and Tanzania linked to investments in fossil-fuel projects.” However, several major banks and insurance agencies have still not ruled out support of EACOP, including Standard Chartered, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Bank of China along with insurers like Lloyd’s of London and Liberty Mutual. Environmental and social justice activists are hard at work trying to put more public pressure on these banks and insurers to denounce the pipeline, with major protests and lobbying campaigns being organized in cities across the world. “Oil pipelines are completely unethical and inexcusable unless every party impacted by their implementation supports them, which has never happened because they tend to go through poorer residential areas or indigenous tribal lands which are not as profitable, and thus worthy, to those building them,” said junior Hannah Weisz. “Banks and insurers should divest from oil and find more ethnically and economically sustainable industries to support. Oil is finite!” If finished, the EACOP project will jeopardize over 40 million Ugandans’ and Tanzanians’ access to fresh water from Lake Victoria. This water is not only used for drinking water but also for irrigation. Therefore the consequences posed by this project could cause over 100,000 to lose access to arable land for farming and livestock. Critics also argue that EACOP’s owners could invoke eminent domain laws to force people out of their homes to make way for the pipeline’s construction. Many also fear that the pipeline could easily create frequent spills and leaks due to its being built in an active earthquake zone. Aside from the likely humanitarian costs of the pipeline, activists are furious that TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation barely ever discussed the plans with the people who would be directly impacted in Uganda and Tanzania. “We cannot eat profits, yet [TotalEnergies] is [constructing the pipeline] because they only care about themselves,” said Tanzanian and Ugandan activists in a video released by the “StopEACOP” campaign. “This is corporate colonialism in action.” Not everyone opposes the pipeline’s construction, however. “I don’t see what the problem is. If Uganda and Tanzania agree for the project to happen in their country that’s fine,” said sophomore John Raskin. “Crude oil has always been an ongoing discussion amongst people but as no one is being harmed and they are doing it in a safe way I see no problem with that.” Although funders of the EACOP project state that it would help grow the economies of Uganda and Tanzania, activists argue that since only 30% of the pipeline is owned by East African companies, very little of the profits from the pipeline would trickle down to help the actual frontline communities it is displacing. “I do not think it is fair that Uganda and Tanzania only own 30% of the pipeline project because these communities would not receive any major benefits, economic or otherwise, from the project,” said sophomore Oren Goldman. “Instead, it would cause increased environmental pollution and other damages. The outside companies responsible for this project should not be able to profit off of the harm they leave behind for others in East Africa.” The pipeline could also contaminate many nature reserves and national parks, such as Uganda’s Murchison Falls National Park and Bugoma Forest, which contain endangered species like the African Elephant and the Eastern Chimpanzee, and Tanzania’s Biharamulo Game Reserve which is home to thousands of endangered species. The #StopEACOP campaign has calculated that if the EACOP is completed, over 2,000 square kilometers of protected wildlife reserves and national parks will be destroyed. World-renowned climate activist and ecologist Bill McKibben said that “The proposed route looks almost as if it were drawn to endanger as many animals as possible.” “I am infuriated,” said sophomore Nomi Harosh. “At a time when so much life on the planet is endangered by climate change, this is like pouring gasoline on an already out of control fire. What hope do we have to combat climate change if we continue to value corporate greed over the environment?” Another reason why activists are fighting against the proposed pipeline is the immense damage to the global climate and the local environment that the project will cause. If completed, the EACOP will produce 34 million tons of carbon emissions every year– more than 25 times the current carbon emissions of both Uganda and Tanzania combined. Both are already beginning to face climate disasters at an unprecedented rate even before the completion of the pipeline. Vanessa Nakate, a Ugandan climate activist who has been a keynote speaker at the Youth4Climate and COP26 climate conferences, reflected on her country’s discovery of oil in an op-ed published in the New York Times. “Oil was discovered in the Lake Albert basin in 2006, when I was in primary school, and I remember my teacher proudly announcing to the class that Uganda had found ‘black gold.’ But the discovery of oil in Nigeria, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo has not brought widespread prosperity. Instead, it has brought poverty, violence and the loss of traditional lands and cultures… This pipeline is not an investment for the people… Africa needs the climate financing it has been promised by rich countries, as well as from private institutions, to develop clean energy. There is a huge appetite for clean energy alternatives here… Financial institutions must reject the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and fossil fuel projects like it, in favor of clean energy. The science is clear.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
EditorShayne Cytrynbaum Archives
December 2023
Categories |