The shares of TotalEnergies, a French oil giant, are once again under fire. Four environmental associations have filed a criminal complaint in France against the company, accusing it in particular of involuntary manslaughter and destruction of the environment with its oil project under development in Uganda.
The associations Darwin Climax Coalitions, Sea Shepherd France, Wild Legal and Stop EACOP-Stop Total in Uganda filed this complaint on September 22, asserting that TotalEnergies knowingly and with impunity fuels climate change. They demand that the company be held accountable for its actions.
The project in question involves the construction of a 1,443 kilometer heated oil pipeline linking the oil fields of Lake Albert, in Uganda, to the Tanzanian coast on the Indian Ocean. This project also involves drilling nearly 400 oil wells in Murchison Falls National Park, a key biodiversity reserve in Uganda.
However, this project is strongly contested by activists and environmental groups. They estimate that it will lead to significant population displacements and impoverishment of local communities. Furthermore, they point out that this project will have a major impact on the natural areas of Murchison Falls National Park, putting the fragile ecosystem of the region at risk.
The plaintiffs also accuse TotalEnergies of failing in its responsibilities by not implementing concrete actions to fight climate change, despite its promises in terms of environmental strategy. They claim that the company’s new oil projects are completely incompatible with the Paris climate agreement and lead to global warming of +3°C or more, which would cause environmental chaos.
TotalEnergies affirms for its part that its operations are carried out in compliance with the laws and regulations in force. The company has not yet responded to the specific accusations made in the complaint.
This legal action comes in an increasingly tense context for companies in the oil sector, which are increasingly faced with criticism from civil society and demands for concrete measures to combat climate change. The courts’ decisions in these cases could potentially pave the way for significant changes to corporate responsibility for the climate crisis.