Speaking at COP29 in Azerbaijan about the impact of climate change on Africa, the executives of Afreximbank promised to double-down on their commitment to a just energy transition on the continent. But, four months later, the multilateral lender has confirmed its support for a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast for export overseas.
It was announced this week that the African Export-Import Bank – whose main shareholders are African governments – would be part of a syndicate of financial institutions committing a first tranche of external financing to the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project, which is majority-controlled by French energy giant TotalEnergies.
Other lenders include South Africa’s Standard Bank, Uganda’s Stanbic Bank and KBC Bank, and Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, according to a statement published by EACOP’s developer, which called the financing deal “a significant milestone”.
The loan is in the range of $1 billion, with two further tranches expected, according to the government-owned Ugandan newspaper New Vision. Afreximbank earlier indicated it would provide $200 million to the project.
Samuel Okulony, CEO of the Environment Governance Institute, a Ugandan NGO, told Climate Home that Afreximbank’s actions are in direct contradiction of their “empty words” on climate change.
“Afreximbank is funding the destruction of our own people, while at the same time speaking about energy transition and a commitment to a cleaner future. It is a big disappointment,” he said.
Afreximbank did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment.
Oil pipeline faces strong opposition
The 1,443-km pipeline would carry crude oil extracted from oilfields under development near Lake Albert in Uganda to Tanga port in Tanzania for onward export to international markets. The long-delayed project has been the target of protests and lawsuits from campaigners that accuse the project developers of displacing communities, damaging the environment and fuelling the climate crisis.
A coalition of regional civil society groups said on Thursday it is a “shame” that the EACOP developer would announce financing for the project on a day many Ugandans had come face-to-face with the dire impacts of global warming. This stark reality was evident on the front page of the state-owned New Vision newspaper, which published the EACOP announcement just above a picture of the deadly floods that hit the capital Kampala this week.
The coalition said it is considering “legal and other actions” against financial institutions that “continue to prioritise profits over the lives and wellbeing of East Africans. Campaigners said the project has already displaced thousands of people and stands to harm plants and animals, while also threatening livelihoods in the farming and tourism sectors.
‘Desperate’ search for funders
The construction of the pipeline is a key element in Uganda’s push to become an oil producer, which the government says would propel the country’s economic growth.
The East African nation has been looking to exploit its natural resources for nearly two decades since oil reserves were discovered in the Albertine Rift Basin near the Democratic Republic of Congo. But development stalled as the plans faced local opposition and the project struggled to attract external financing.
Several Western banks, including BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Barclays and Standard Chartered, have publicly stated their intention not to pour money into the project.
Ugandan energy minister Ruth Nankabirwa, who has blamed activists for the project’s setbacks, said last September that at least seven European banks had committed, in private, to finance the project, the Financial Times reported – but no official announcement has materialised since then.
Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation
Afreximbank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank and Islamic Development Bank had all indicated their willingness to fund the pipeline construction in the past, while KCB Bank of Uganda is only being linked with the project now.
Okulony said Wednesday’s announcement amounted to a “desperate move” from the EACOP developer to demonstrate progress and drum up additional interest from investors in the project.
He added that regional African banks are becoming lenders of last resort for the oil industry in the continent, “covering up a gap” left by the accelerating withdrawal of Western lenders.
Oil investments clash with climate pledge
Afrieximbank – whose main shareholders are the Egyptian and Nigerian governments – is a major backer of fossil fuel developments in Africa.
The lender’s exposure to the oil and gas sector increased in 2024, making up over a fifth of its total loans. It has bankrolled the expansion of oil production in Nigeria and the Republic of Congo, and last month it announced the intention to set up a $1-billion financing facility for the fast-growing oil industry in Guyana.
The investments contrast with Afrieximbank’s public attempts to bolster its climate credentials.
At the COP29 climate summit, the lender said it would advocate for policies and investments that accelerate Africa’s energy transition and called for a scale-up in climate finance. Its president, Nigerian economist Benedict Oramah, stressed that the devastating impacts of climate change on the continent would probably intensify in the next decade.
“We are at the point where taking action does not only suggest good environmental stewardship,” he said, “but must also be seen as a sound economic policy, considering that the cost of immediate and decisive action is far less than the cost of inaction and delayed efforts.”
Similarly, another backer of the Ugandan project, Standard Bank, wrote in its climate policy that it supports the Paris Agreement in transitioning Africa to a lower-carbon economy and aims for net zero emissions from its portfolio by 2050.
‘Assault’ on the planet
The STOPEacop coalition said the decision to fund a fossil fuel infrastructure project “is not just “irresponsible” but also an “active assault” on the planet and people. The banks supporting the project have marked themselves as “enemies of the people” which enable “climate chaos, environmental destruction” and support international profiteers at the expense of local communities, its statement added.
The project developer still needs to raise the majority of the funding for the pipeline construction, which has an expected price tag of $5 billion.
Okulony said EACOP is trying to attract interest from Islamic financial institutions, especially in Oman.
Ryan Brightwell, deputy director at campaigning group BankTrack, told Climate Home that EACOP has tried since 2018 to secure financing for the project, and the fact that it has now only finalised one tranche “only goes to show the extent of their troubles”.
The post African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments appeared first on Climate Home News.
African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban