Javier Bello was astonished by what he witnessed in the waters off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico. Initially believed to be little more than a sandy area, it was in fact a thriving marine ecosystem. Sunbeams illuminated the waters as fish danced among the delicate coral formations 328 feet below the surface. Such a sight was remarkable, as shared by the marine scientist who, along with other scientists, fishers, and activists, boarded the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise for three weeks last June. The goal of their voyage was to highlight the potential losses resulting from the construction of a natural gas pipeline.
TC Energy, the company responsible for the Keystone XL pipeline, had proposed an extension to a natural gas pipeline that would span roughly 497 miles from Tuxpan to Coatzacoalcos in the Mexican state of Veracruz. Despite the company’s claims that there was no significant marine life along the proposed route, a marine habitat that extends beyond the protected areas had been discovered. This discovery has led to concern among proponents and scientists like Bello, who recognize the importance of further studying and protecting these reefs for their ecological impact.
Opposition toward the pipeline is not solely based on its environmental impact, supporters believe that it will also disrupt the livelihoods of local communities and keep Mexico reliant upon fossil fuels, which will contribute to further climate change effects. Despite this concern, TC Energy announced a partnership with Mexico’s state-owned electric utility, CFE, to build an extension to its Sur de Texas-Tuxpan Gas Pipeline, with an estimated cost of $5 billion. This has prompted environmental organizations to warn of the project’s grave risk to the coral reef corridor. TC Energy’s environmental review process has come under scrutiny by environmentalists, who argue that the proposed dumping polygon, where sediment dug up during construction will be placed, poses a significant threat to the marine ecosystems.
With stages one and two already having been approved, there is still time to prevent the project from moving forward entirely. Environmental groups are rallying against the pipeline, calling attention to the potential consequences for local communities and a loss of marine life. The pipeline poses a threat to the livelihood of over 70,000 people whose sole income depends on fishing, potentially affecting the coastal elasticity to extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels.
All in all, opposition to the project stems from its potential negative impact against environmental, scientific, and community perspectives, and the pressure to prevent this pipeline from moving forward is mounting.
