Potential oil pipeline in Uganda sparks fierce debate over fossil fuels and economic gain
Environmental activists, government officials, and financial institutions are fighting over what could be the world’s longest-heated oil pipeline, running from Uganda through Tanzania to the coast. The pipeline would make Uganda both a producer of oil and an exporter of oil for the first time, something that could seriously benefit the nation economically. It would also create severe environmental damage, and displace thousands of Ugandans from their homes.
Environmental & Social Havoc
Of course, there’s no giant oil pipeline without problems. The route for the line is expected to run through Uganda’s largest national park and protected animal sanctuary, Murchison Falls. A large highway road is already being built through the sanctuary to support the transit of oil machinery, trucks, and other equipment needed to build the line. Clearly, the construction of this pipeline will harm hundreds of animal species, destroying their habitat and disrupting their ecosystems.
Like other pipeline projects, this one will also displace people from their homes. Thousands of people are expected to be forced to move. The project hasn’t clearly outlined how these families will be compensated, or where they are expected to go. For a nation struggling with economic stability, asking communities to move without compensation or a clear path could cause serious human rights issues.
That’s not to mention the high risk of oil spills and the disruption posed by the construction of the pipeline.
Economic Impacts
The economic gain of this pipeline could be huge. Job creation and employment from the pipeline would certainly help Ugandans in desperate need of reliable and lucrative work. Uganda has over $116 billion USD worth of oil and gas assets that haven’t been realized. The economic growth and tax income from accessing these reserves could be huge for the nation's GDP.
It’s a complicated situation. While we all want to move towards a green and renewable energy world as fast as possible, it is hard to deny millions of people a project that has a chance of increasing the quality of life in their country.
Intense Pushback
Environmental NGOs and activist groups have been organizing large campaigns against the pipeline’s construction. Activists are using the relatively new strategy of targeting the financial institutions, like banks and insurers, expected to fund the pipeline. Together they’ve been able to get 20 banks to publicly state they would not be funding the pipeline’s efforts. Alas, the pipeline still found funding– France's TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation signed a $10-billion deal to fund the crude oil pipeline.
The European Union Parliament recently released a resolution in stark opposition to the current proposed plan for the pipeline. The resolution urged Ugandan officials to delay the project by a year in order to determine a better route for the pipeline that would displace fewer communities. They also denounced several violations of human rights related to the project, including “wrongful imprisonment of human rights defenders, the arbitrary suspension of NGOs, arbitrary prison sentences, and the eviction of hundreds of people from their land without fair and adequate compensation."
Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni largely disagreed with the resolution, saying he would find potential partners willing to continue with the project should TotalEnergies or CNOOC back out. Uganda’s President, like many other politicians in the country, sees the pipeline as a long overdue and much-needed advancement in the economic position of the nation.
Complex climate impacts
To add a crazier twist, the country is no stranger to climate-related natural disasters, and has experienced several catastrophic ones in the past few years alone. In 2022, heavy rainfall caused severe flooding that led to the death of 29 people and the displacement of thousands in eastern Uganda. Drought in the northeastern part of the country has created famine for half a million people, where hundreds are already dying from malnutrition and starvation.
It’s a bleak scene one can only look at as exacerbated by our use of fossil fuels. Ugandan citizens are already suffering at the hands of fossil fuel companies, but haven’t been benefitting from the profits of big energy at all.
Africa has the least greenhouse gas emissions of any continent. Sub-saharan Africa has contributed the least to global warming of any region in the world. Yet these nations are bearing the brunt of climate change’s effects, with climate migration across the continent expected to be in the hundreds of millions by 2050.
Plans to continue the progression of the pipeline are underway in Uganda, and with the support of the government, are likely to be successful. Climate activists still warn about the long-term impacts of developing another major fossil fuel deposit, which will obviously increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere once burned.
A dire situation
The reality is that our atmosphere simply cannot handle more CO2 emissions without causing severe negative and irreversible harm to our planet. Most major climate reporting states that in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change, new oil and gas projects should be stopped immediately.
The complex situation in Uganda raises important questions about who bears the brunt of climate change and who benefits from it financially. It also forces us to consider how we will move forward with a green energy transition that is also fair and just on an international scale.
Many thanks to the reporting that helped make this information available. To learn more about the pipeline, check out the following resources:
Comments