– Advertisement –
Greenpeace continues to promote an anti-fossil fuel agenda, while relying on the very fuels they seek to eliminate, according to the African Energy Chamber
Greenpeace has announced that its Rainbow Warrior ship will dock at the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, South Africa this January, bringing with it a quintessential example of salt-crusted irony.
Greenpeace, which actively protests against oil companies, will use petroleum-powered cars to get there, wearing synthetic, oil-based clothing while taking pictures and tweeting from phones made from critical minerals and oil – the very products of the industry they want to dismantle.
Used as a tool to protest the very energy resources that stand to lift Africa out of energy poverty, Greenpeace is offering a “once-in-a-lifetime experience” to tour the ship. But as their ship docks in one of Africa’s harbours, one must ask: why does Greenpeace’s narrative for Africa’s energy future demand absolute restraint while its own global operations continue to rely on the very fossil fuels it insists African nations must leave in the ground?
While Greenpeace routinely urges African nations to leave their fossil resources undeveloped, its own operations underscore the impracticality of such views. The organisation’s flagship vessel Rainbow Warrior is frequently cited as a symbol of clean activism – yet its design tells a more inconvenient truth. Despite incorporating wind-assisted sails, battery systems and efficiency-focused architecture, the ship still relies on diesel-electric engines powered by marine gas oil – a refined fossil fuel – for propulsion, maneuvering and operational reliability. Greenpeace itself acknowledges that wind power merely reduces fuel consumption rather than eliminating it altogether.
This reality exposes a clear double standard: while Greenpeace accepts fossil fuels as a necessary operational compromise for its global campaigns, it simultaneously campaigns for Africa to forgo oil and gas development entirely – resources that underpin electricity access, industrialization and fiscal stability for hundreds of millions of people.
The evidence from Greenpeace’s own vessel confirms what African energy policymakers have long argued: fossil fuels remain structurally embedded in modern systems and demanding that Africa abandon them – while NGOs continue to depend on them – is neither honest nor equitable.
“A wealthy western NGO parading Africa in a fancy boat, eating caviar and goat cheese, while drinking matcha with almond milk, telling Africans to stop oil and gas is shocking to say the least. It kind of takes your breath away. It gives Chutzpah a new meaning,” says NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman, African Energy Chamber.
With over 600 million people living without access to electricity, 900 million people living without access to clean cooking solutions and millions dying from biomass-associated health risks, the continent cannot afford to leave its oil and gas resources in the ground. But organisations such as Greenpeace continue to oppose this strategy, launching attacks on projects, deterring investments and impacting any meaningful progress to make energy poverty history.
By blocking seismic surveys in South Africa and lobbying against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), these foreign-funded NGOs are engaging in a form of economic sabotage. They are effectively telling Africa: “You may have the resources to power your own industrialisation, but you are not allowed to use them.” Projects such as EACOP offer a lifeline for many communities in East Africa.
The pipeline will not only transport crude from Uganda’s oilfields to international markets via Tanzania, but generate the revenue that can transform local infrastructure, power homes and develop strong, resilient economies. The same can be said for South Africa – home to significant offshore and onshore hydrocarbon resources that could, if extracted, stabilise the economy, eliminate load-shedding and power the country for decades to come.
“If fossil fuels remain necessary for Greenpeace to run its own operations, then it is neither credible nor justifiable to demand that Africa leave its resources undeveloped while millions remain without electricity, jobs or industrial opportunity,” Ayuk notes, adding “Africa needs energy to industrialise and create jobs. There is more dignity in work than in accepting foreign aid. The main goal of Greenpeace and its western funders is to keep Africa underdeveloped and in energy poverty. We must not let them.”
The next time you see a Greenpeace boat on the horizon, remember: that ship is a monument to the very industry they want to destroy. They are enjoying the fruits of the energy industry while trying to deny those same fruits to a continent that needs them most.
“The African Energy Chamber believes Africans should make their own when it comes to oil development, not foreign NGO’S. Most Africans without electricity can’t even afford the Greenpeace boat ride. Think about that,” he concludes.
