January, 31 2022, 11:07am EDT
Fight to End Finance for East African Crude Oil Pipeline Escalates
On Tuesday 2nd February, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is expected to announce a milestone in the highly controversial process to build the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) - a 1,443-kilometer crude oil pipeline from Hoima in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania that, if completed, would be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world.
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday 2nd February, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is expected to announce a milestone in the highly controversial process to build the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) - a 1,443-kilometer crude oil pipeline from Hoima in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania that, if completed, would be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world.
At an official ceremony scheduled for Tuesday, Museveni will officially sign a Final Investment Decision (FID) for the EACOP project, sending the signal that it has the necessary financial backing required to go ahead. However it is widely understood that this massive new fossil fuel project still faces a significant funding shortfall of at least $2.5billion.
Campaigners are stepping up efforts to ensure this fossil fuel finance is never made available. Many major banks have already ruled out supporting the project, while activists are now applying pressure to those that remain as potential funders. These banks include: Standard Bank (South Africa), ICBC (China), JPMorgan Chase (USA), MUFG (Japan), Standard Chartered (UK), Citi (US), Deutsche Bank (Germany) and SMBC (Japan).
Landry Ninteretse, 350Africa.org Regional Director said:
"The future of East Africa relies on building sustainable, diversified and inclusive economies - not by letting huge multinational corporations like Total extract resources and keep the profit. The impacts of building the East Africa Oil Pipeline will be devastating for our communities, for wildlife and for the planet. But, despite today's announcement and the PR drive from fossil fuel supporters, EACOP is not inevitable. In fact, it needs billions of dollars from private banks around the world to become viable. Most of these banks have already distanced themselves from this controversial project. Together we can further pressure the reluctant ones and stop this fossil finance flowing into the East Africa region and instead support real solutions that not only safeguard the rights of the communities and protect the environment, but also deliver sustainable development for local communities."
Isabelle l'Heritier, 350.org France campaigner said:
"The French oil giant Total is on the verge of building a devastating oil pipeline right through the heart of Africa - displacing thousands of households, endangering water resources for millions of Ugandans and Tanzanians, devastating vulnerable ecosystems, and pushing the world further into climate chaos. The people benefitting from this aren't local communities, they are rich European banks and oil companies like Total. Over 260 organisations are urgently trying to convince banks around the world to rule out supporting this disastrous project. Eleven banks, including three French banks, have already pulled out. In Europe we are stepping up our efforts to work with African groups to cut the flows of finance from European banks that want to keep profiting from disastrous, unwanted projects in the global south."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
'One Job Should Be Enough!': Vegas Hospitality Workers Vote by 95% to Authorize Strike
"Companies are generating record profits and we demand that workers aren't left behind and have a fair share of that success," said one Culinary Union leader.
Sep 27, 2023
Members of two Nevada labor unions—including the state's largest—on Tuesday overwhelmingly voted to authorize a citywide strike at 22 Las Vegas casinos, while continuing to negotiate a new contract "in good faith" with gaming companies.
Chanting "one job should be enough," tens of thousands of cocktail and food servers, bartenders, cooks, porters, and other non-gaming hotel employees in the Culinary Union Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165—affiliates of the Unite Here—packed the Thomas and Mack Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where they voted by 95% during two sessions to approve a work stoppage at Las Vegas Strip properties owned by MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and Wynn/Encore Resorts.
The affiliated unions—which represent 60,000 Nevada workers, including 53,000 in Las Vegas—can now call a strike at any time. It would be the first citywide strike in the resort industry in nearly 40 years.
Since September 15, 40,000 union members have been working under an expired contract. The Culinary Union said it remains in "active negotiations" with employers over a new five-year contract.
"Today, Culinary and Bartenders union members have sent the strongest message possible to the casino industry to settle a fair contract as soon as possible," Culinary Union secretary-treasurer Ted Pappageorge said in a statement. "We have negotiations scheduled next week with MGM Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, and Wynn/Encore Resorts and it's up to the three largest employers in Las Vegas to step up and do the right thing."
"If these gaming companies don't come to an agreement, the workers have spoken and we will be ready to do whatever it takes—up to and including a strike," Pappageorge added. "Companies are generating record profits and we demand that workers aren't left behind and have a fair share of that success."
Las Vegas set an all-time record for gaming revenue for the second straight year last year, despite the Covid-19 pandemic. The city's casino resorts reported $14.8 billion in 2022 revenue, a 10.5% increase over the previous year.
The unions' objectives include:
- Winning the largest wage increases ever negotiated in Culinary Union history;
- Reducing workload and steep housekeeping room quotas, mandating daily room cleaning, and establishing the right for guest room attendants to securely work in set areas;
- Providing the best on-the-job safety protections;
- Tracking sexual harassment, assault, and criminal behavior by customers;
- Ensuring advanced notification when new technology is introduced which would impact jobs and requiring training for new jobs created by technology;
- Guaranteeing healthcare and severance pay for workers who are laid off because of new technology; and
- Extending recall rights so that workers have more job security and have the right to return to their jobs in the event of another pandemic or economic crisis.
"I voted yes to authorize a strike because I'm fighting for my family and for our future," said Maria Sanchez, a Culinary Union member who works as a guest room attendant at the Bellagio. "The workload since the pandemic has been intense and when I get home I'm so tired and I don't have energy to take my two kids to the park or play with them. I feel sad like I'm just living to work and it's not right."
"I feel sad like I'm just living to work and it's not right."
"I was thinking about getting a second job, but I'm already doing more than one job at work right now and I believe that one job should be enough," she added. "I voted yes to win the best contract ever so that I can work one job and come home to spend time with my children."
In 2018, members of the Culinary and Bartenders unions voted to authorize a strike. A new contract was negotiated shortly after the vote, averting a work stoppage.
Last year, members of the Local 54 chapter of the Unite Here union—which represents hospitality industry employees in Atlantic City, New Jersey—negotiated new contracts that included the workers' largest-ever raise.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Parents Think Public Library Book Bans Infringe on Their Rights
"This report sheds light on the perceptions of parents regarding public libraries and the current issues they face," said John Chrastka, EveryLibrary Institute executive director.
Sep 27, 2023
As the right-wing book-banning movement justifies its crusade against U.S. libraries and classrooms with claims of "parental rights," survey data released Wednesday shows that 74% of parents agree or somewhat agree that book bans for public libraries infringe on their right to make decisions for their children.
"This report sheds light on the perceptions of parents regarding public libraries and the current issues they face," said EveryLibrary Institute executive director John Chrastka, whose think tank and professional network partnered with the website Book Riot for a survey conducted this month, as the 2023-24 academic year got underway.
"Together with Book Riot, we are dedicated to empowering libraries to provide exceptional services that meet the unique needs of parents," Chrastka continued. "The results of this survey can be used to improve library services and address parents' concerns, ultimately leading to better experiences at the library for parents and their children."
"Our ultimate goal is to foster an open dialogue around these issues and to support libraries and their users in navigating this challenging landscape."
EveryLibrary Institute and Book Riot aimed to "gather insights from parents and guardians about their opinions on book bans; their trust in libraries and their understanding of librarians' book selection process; and their opinions on sensitive subjects in children's books, such as sex, LGBTQ+ characters and themes, race, and social justice issues."
The organizations found that 92% of respondents feel their children are safe at the library, 67% believe that "banning books is a waste of time," and 58% think librarians should be primarily responsible for what is available at a public library—even though 53% do not know how librarians decide what works should be in a collection.
Additionally, 87% of respondents agree or somewhat agree that "characters in books should be diverse and reflect multiple communities," 82% support teens having access to content on "controversial subjects and themes," 67% believe libraries should carry children's books that discuss topics such as racism and sex, and nearly 61% think collections should include kids' titles with LGBTQ+ characters and stories.
Respondents also want a role in decision-making: 95% believe parents should be involved in helping their children decide what to read; 90% agree or somewhat agree that they should make decisions about what their child reads; and 53% think parent groups should be involved in collection development choices.
Two-thirds of respondents said "no" when asked if their child has ever been uncomfortable with a book they checked out, and about the same share said "no" when asked if a book their child checked out made them, the parent, uncomfortable.
"By gathering insights from parents, we hope to generate a body of informative and thought-provoking material that sheds light on the complex issues surrounding book bans and censorship," said Book Riot's Kelly Jensen. "Our ultimate goal is to foster an open dialogue around these issues and to support libraries and their users in navigating this challenging landscape."
The findings follow a pair of reports from last week that highlighted right-wing efforts to ban books in libraries and schools.
As of August 31, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom documented 695 attempts this year to remove a total of 1,915 titles from public and school libraries—an increase from last year, which broke the overall record for book challenges since data collecting began over two decades ago.
During the 2022-23 academic year, PEN America recorded a 33% increase in book bans at K-12 public schools from 2021-22. The group tracked 3,362 instances, which cut off student access to 1,557 unique titles. Over 40% of bans occurred in Florida, where public education is under attack from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a 2024 presidential candidate.
"Those who are bent on the suppression of stories and ideas are turning our schools into battlegrounds, compounding post-pandemic learning loss, driving teachers out of the classroom, and denying the joy of reading to our kids," said PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel. "By depriving a rising generation of the freedom to read, these bans are eating away at the foundations of our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Truly Historic' Youth-Led Climate Case Arrives at European Human Rights Court
Six Portuguese young people are suing the governments of 33 countries, arguing their human rights have been violated by a widespread failure to mitigate the climate crisis.
Sep 27, 2023
Lawyers for six Portuguese children and young adults on Wednesday expressed hope that their unprecedented climate case, brought to the European Court of Human Rights three years after it was first filed, will ultimately be a "game-changer" that forces governments in Europe and across the globe to take decisive action to address the climate emergency.
Ranging in age from 11 to 24, the six plaintiffs sat on Wednesday before nearly two dozen human rights judges and attorneys representing nearly three dozen nations, determined to prove to the court that countries across Europe have violated their fundamental rights by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue heating the planet despite warnings from energy experts and scientists.
In Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and 32 Others, the plaintiffs are seeking not financial relief but a ruling from the court that would compel the governments of the 27 E.U. member-nations as well as Russia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Turkey to speed up their efforts to keep planetary heating below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
Because the human rights court's rulings are legally binding for E.U. members, a decision in favor of the young plaintiffs "would act like a binding treaty imposed by the court on the respondents, requiring them to rapidly accelerate their climate mitigation efforts," Gerry Liston of the U.K.-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), told the Associated Press.
"In legal terms, it would be a game-changer," Liston told the outlet.
Four of the plaintiffs live in central Portugal, where wildfires killed at least 66 people in 2017. The country faced more blazes this summer—the hottest on record—as well as a record-breaking heatwave which saw the temperature in the central region of the country rise to 46.4°C (115.5°F), which at least one plaintiff said had interfered with schoolwork, and which climate scientists said would not have happened without planetary heating and fossil fuel extraction.
"Without urgent action to cut emissions, [the place] where I live will soon become an unbearable furnace," 20-year-old Martim Agostinho, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Lawyers for the defendants claimed the group should have litigated the case in the domestic court system, with Belgian legal expert Isabelle Niedlispacher arguing before the court that the plaintiffs did not make an attempt "to invoke, let alone exhaust domestic remedies."
But GLAN, which says it "pursues innovative legal actions across borders," dismissed the claims, noting that the fossil-fueled climate emergency and the extreme weather it's causing have no respect for countries' boundaries and are placing the entire planet at risk.
"It cannot be within a state's discretion whether or not to act to prevent catastrophic climate destruction," said Alison MacDonald, another attorney representing the young people.
Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, called the case "truly historic" because the governments of dozens of countries have been compelled to respond.
"These governments are forced to lay out a legal defense justifying the gap between their climate policies and what science says is needed to avoid climate breakdown," said Duyck. "In the broader context of global litigation, this case wields remarkable influence, given that the European Court of Human Rights holds a prominent role in setting legal precedents within Europe and beyond."
The case was brought to the court a month after a state judge in Montana sided with 16 young residents who argued that the state had violated their rights by promoting fossil fuel extraction. The United Nations Environment Program released a report in July showing that climate litigation has emerged as an important driver of far-reaching, concrete action by governments to reduce emissions.
Gearoid O'Cuinn, another lawyer for GLAN, said defendants resorted to "climate denialism" when they argued, as Greece did, that the "effects of climate change, as recorded so far, do not seem to directly affect human life or human health."
Greece has faced both deadly wildfires and flooding in recent weeks.
"European governments' climate policies are consistent with a catastrophic 3° of global heating this century," said Liston. "For the brave youth-applicants, that is a life sentence of heat extremes which are unimaginable even by today's rapidly deteriorating standards."
"The European Court of Human Rights was set up following the horrors of World War II to hold European governments to account for failing to protect human rights," Liston added. "Never has there been as urgent a need for the court to do so than in this case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!