Vulnerable seniors captured in ice, restoring corals, and heatwaves hitting Europe. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Germany – With four life-size ice sculptures, Greenpeace Germany is commemorating the victims of this extreme summer at Berlin’s treeless Gendarmenmarkt. In the center of the melting sculptures, activists display the updated number of heat-related deaths: 15,800. According to current estimates by the Robert Koch Institute, this is how many people died prematurely from the effects of the heat in the summer of 2026.

Indonesia – Greenpeace Indonesia, the USBA Institute, the Raja Ampat Indigenous Community, and the Congo Basin Indigenous Community participate in coral reef restoration activities through coral transplantation on Arborek Island, Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, Indonesia. The activity highlights the importance of Indigenous-led conservation and collective efforts to protect and restore Raja Ampat’s rich marine biodiversity and coral reef ecosystems.

Belgium – A massive fire broke out on Friday 14 August 2026 in the High Fens nature reserve (East of Belgium). Fuelled by the dry vegetation, this peatland fire ravaged more than 3,000 hectares of nature.

Germany – Greenpeace Germany activists demonstrate in front of Neuhardenberg Castle near Berlin for better climate protection, using a fire truck and a banner reading “Merz, put out the fire.”

Wales – Greenpeace UK addresses Prime Minister Andy Burnham in a massive land artwork on the side of a mountain in Conwy, Wales, where “terrifying” wildfires recently incinerated vast parts of the landscape. Greenpeace used the scorched earth as a canvas to send a message to the new British Prime Minister “Our house is on fire Andy”, accompanied by an illustration of Burnham poised to pour oil and gas over the flames urging the new PM to pay attention to climate impacts battering the country and reject consent for more drilling in the North Sea.
The artwork was made using eco-friendly, plastic free paint.

Indonesia – Representatives of Papuan and Brazilian Amazon Indigenous communities hold a photo opportunity during Raja Ampat Indigenous Grand Assembly in Arborek island, Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua. To celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, and to support their movement to protect their lands.

Black Sea – Greenpeace activists from Romania, Austria, Slovenia, and Slovakia aboard the ship Arctic Sunrise carried out a peaceful protest in the international waters of the Black Sea, calling for the deployment of safe renewables over risky gas projects. Deploying a 11-meter floating banner, they highlighted how offshore gas extraction in the Black Sea is highly vulnerable to military attacks and cannot guarantee energy security, while posing grave risks to marine ecosystems.

Cameroon – On the occasion of International Youth Day, The Youth and Volunteers Programme organised an activity titled “SPORT FOR EBO FOREST” at Parcours Vita in Yaoundé. This hiking event, held in support of the Ebo Forest, enabled youths and volunteers to take part in a fitness walk led by a sports coach, participate in a photo session, and enjoy moments of bonding through recreational games.

Denmark – Greenpeace Nordic activists peacefully protest at the headquarters of the lobbying organization Danish Agriculture & Food Council in Copenhagen, Denmark. The activists have climbed up and raised a red warning flag on the flagpole and hung a large banner over the façade with the message: “Dead fjords start here.” The protest draws a straight line from the lobbying organisation to the dying fjords and waters that are under pressure from oxygen depletion caused by nitrogen pollution from industrial agriculture.

Greenpeace has been a pioneer of photo activism for more than 50 years, and remains committed to bearing witness and exposing environmental injustice through the images we capture.

To see more Greenpeace photos and videos, please visit our Media Library.

Six months after the US-Israeli war on Iran began, civilians, ecosystems and households far beyond the battlefield are still paying its price. The costs appear in lives lost and displaced, polluted seas and air, and higher bills driven by a fossil fuel-dependent energy system.

The human cost of the war on Iran

It is difficult to have an exact, up-to-date figure, but various records indicate that more than 8,000 human beings have lost their lives and around 50,000 have been injured as a result of the war:

● In the first 40 days of the war alone, more than 3,500 people were killed in Iran.

● More than 750 US soldiers wounded and 18 killed, according to the Pentagon (the same institution that has recently hidden figures).

Every life is sacred and the human suffering of this and any war should be reason enough to stop the bombing.

The environmental cost of the war on Iran

War ruins life in all its forms. Even relatively small oil spills can have a strong environmental impact and lasting consequences for marine ecosystems.

The impact of oil spills is so severe that some of them are now visible from space. One example is the spill stretching for more than eight kilometres south of the Iranian island of Qeshm, after a vessel was damaged in waters near the Strait of Hormuz. Despite clean-up efforts, this has put mangroves, coastal habitats and the people whose livelihoods depend on the sea at risk.

But sadly, this is not the first oil spill caused by war, and it certainly won’t be the last. In May, for example, the Iranian Navy frigate IRIS Dena was torpedoed and sunk by the U.S. Navy in the Indian Ocean. Three days after it sank, an oil slick appeared near the coast of Sri Lanka, showing that transporting oil safely is just as impossible as cleaning up an oil spill.

Also in May, an oil spill, allegedly caused by attacks on a refinery, reached the shores of Shidvar Island, one of Iran’s most important protected nature reserves and a refuge for coral reefs, endangered sea turtles, dolphins and birds, which were trapped in the tar.

And as if that weren’t enough, this is compounded by the contamination of drinking water, the air, and food. In the first two weeks of the war on Iran alone, 5 million tonnes of CO₂ were emitted. Attacks on oil installations have caused “black rain” (a mixture of oil and precipitation) and thick plumes of toxic smoke, while the bombing of military installations spreads dangerous pollutants.

It is in this way that war not only takes lives, but also destroys the systems that make life possible: water networks, sewage treatment works, farmland, ports, fuel depots and the electricity infrastructure, amongst others.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Greenpeace International (@greenpeace)

The economic cost of the war on Iran

War is very, very expensive. Reconstruction, long-term health and environmental harm, lost livelihoods, the higher gas, energy and food costs paid by households worldwide, and of course the direct military costs. Let’s take the latter for reference:

According to United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the first five months of the war cost US$37 billion. If that’s true, the war has cost US$260 million a day.

But despite that being almost double the daily economic expenditure of the Vietnam War, it’s not enough for Trump – which is why the Pentagon requested an additional US$67 billion from Congress. Yes, two times what it claims to have spent. To put that in perspective, that figure is greater than the GDP of entire countries like Cameroon, Jordan, or Iceland. And even then, it would barely cover a small portion of the expenses.

Linda J. Bilmes, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, suggests that the war has cost so far around US$120 billion —and “that doesn’t include another US$250 billion for rebuilding the hundreds of U.S. facilities across the Middle East that have been destroyed or damaged. And then there are long-term costs, which are the sort of base of the iceberg, and they are much larger”.

There’s more. The Iran war could unleash the largest single-year US military expenditure since World War II. That is, if Congress approves the obscene US$1.5 trillion defense budget the Trump administration proposed for 2027.

And what is all that money for? No, it’s not to fund public health care for US citizens. Nor is it to help young people pay off their student debt. While US weaponry and your personal budget are dwindling, Trump’s goal is to build a “Dream Military“.

The personal cost of the war on Iran (on your budget)

Meanwhile, millions of people are living a nightmare. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which almost a fifth of the world’s oil used to pass) has caused the price of oil to fluctuate wildly. And when that happens, everything gets more expensive.

It’s called fossilflation (inflation triggered by rising costs of fossil fuels) and you’re probably already paying for it, whether it’s in the gas prices, in your groceries, your energy bill, or even your rent.

Although Trump says the increase in prices is just “peanuts”, the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates that US Americans have collectively paid more than US$86 billion extra since the war began. That means that, on average, each household in the US has had to find ways to pay US$660 more in the last six months.

And the worst part is that, even if the war ends tomorrow (and we hope it does), we will continue to feel the effects of fossilflation for months and even years, all over the world.

And how much does the solution cost? It’s actually pretty affordable 

With six months having passed since the war began, it’s worth asking: what brought us here in the first place? There’s a determining factor in this equation: the global economy’s utter addiction to fossil fuels.

And that’s why we talk about fossilflation (and not just inflation). The human, environmental, and economic costs of this war could be avoided if our economies didn’t depend on the oil that’s blocked in Hormuz and spilling in Oman.

How can governments protect people from future fossil fuel price shocks?

While the world watches in terror and confusion, the solution to this crisis already exists. No strait can block the sun or the wind, and that’s why renewables are a strategic solution for a country’s energy and economic security. Moreover, renewable energy is already the most affordable new source of electricity in most parts of the world. Solar power is, on average, 41% cheaper and onshore wind power more than 50% cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternatives.

One way to finance this energy transition is by taxing the very oil companies that are currently reaping record profits from the war. So there’s no excuse. Your government must protect the people from fossilflation and reduce your country’s dependence on fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to clean energy

Six months on, the costs of this war are being carried by people who did not choose it: families facing violence and displacement, communities having to breathe toxic air, and households squeezed by higher bills. Governments must pursue peace, make fossil fuel polluters pay and invest in renewable energy, efficient homes, public transport and resilient food systems. Only by reducing dependence on volatile oil and gas can we build lasting security.

Make war profiteers pay: tax fossil fuel profits

Stop fossil fuel giants profiting from war and pollution. Sign now to tax profits and fund disaster relief and energy independence.

Sign now

Last updated: 28 August 2026

The first half of 2026 has seen record-breaking heatwaves in Europe, Asia, Africa and North America, as climate change – supercharged by the burning of fossil fuels – increasingly exposes countries to extreme weather events. Devastating flash floods in Nepal are a human tragedy and a dire warning of the heightened risks of rapidly melting ice and glacier collapse in an overheated world. 

The heatwaves triggered exceptional wildfires across western Europe and led to smoke haze from Canadian blazes blanketing large swathes of the US northeast and midwest. Amid a prolonged dry season, the biggest wildfires in Indonesia since the 2015 El Niño have blanketed parts of Southeast Asia in acrid smoke, while India faces its weakest monsoon in two decades.

The Nepal flash-flood is being attributed to a collapsed glacier in the Himalayas, amid ongoing concerns in the region over the impacts of climate change due to indications that floods, landslides, avalanches and droughts are “increasing in frequency and ferocity” across the region.

These heatwaves and so-called natural disasters are the type of impacts IPCC climate scientists have been warning us about for decades due to the burning of coal, oil and gas. The record-shattering temperatures – and new record sea surface temperatures – are the grim reality of climate change and the reason why we need to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energies.

The need to act is more urgent than ever, especially as the El Niño is set to become a record-breaking historic event of its own on an already rapidly warming planet. Forecast to be a ‘super’ El Niño, it is expected to usher in even more severe extreme weather events as the global climate edges closer and closer to temporarily overshooting the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial times.

So why has 2026 seen so many wildfires and heatwaves?

The record heatwaves have spawned conditions contributing to wildfires as our climate rapidly heats up due to decades of fossil fuel pollution and forest destruction. 

Since the Paris Agreement was reached, the years 2015-2025 have been the hottest 11-years on record. Our climate is now more out of balance than at any time in recorded history and as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the 1.5°C threshold is increasingly under threat.

The series of extreme weather events of 2026 also come after July was the planet’s joint warmest July on record, tying with July 2024, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. It continued a trend in which the 10 warmest Julys on record have all occurred since 2016, with the past four years (2023–2026) taking the top four spots.

Due to a combination of July’s record land heat and record sea surface temperatures, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said heatwaves, drought, fire and floods defined the state of the Earth’s climate in July and early August. In the European Union, the wildfires were the fourth worst on record by early August, triggered by conditions linked to climate change. 

While Southern Africa experienced cyclones and widespread flooding from relentless rainfalls at the start of the year, the WMO said Africa and Asia experienced their warmest July on record. Japan and South Korea both recorded exceptional and record-breaking heat at the start of August, alongside other regions in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. 

The Copernicus Climate Change Service said western Europe had its hottest June-July period on record, experiencing four heatwaves since May in an “exceptional run of extreme heat”. Europe is now the fastest-warming continent, warming at more than twice the global average rate.

It’s a trend that brings the “hot and dry conditions that favour large, high-intensity wildfires” that not only result in injury and death, but also health concerns such as respiratory and cardiovascular illness, hospital admissions and premature death from smoke inhalation.

But these extreme weather events cannot be classified as ‘natural’ disasters any more. Extreme weather has become more frequent and destructive due to decades of fossil fuel emissions and it’s time for the world’s governments to hold these oil and gas profiteers to account.

There’s also nothing natural about extractive economic systems that leave some countries, communities and groups of people extremely vulnerable to such hazards. The same powerful interests operating with impunity have stymied political will to hold big polluters to account.

How can these extreme weather events and heatwaves be linked to fossil fuels?

These escalating extreme heatwaves, storms and wildfires are not random chaos: they are instead the result of government inaction allowing fossil fuel companies and nature destroyers to profit over people. This is why political leaders must step up and accelerate action to end fossil fuels and to end forest destruction.

Human-caused atmospheric warming – due to the current and historic emissions primarily from industrialised countries and major corporations – is directly associated with extreme cold and heat events and large-scale heavy rainfall events, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) found.

NASEM said these links have been established with high confidence – supported by physical understanding, observation and simulations – after it recently reviewed progress on attributing extreme weather events to climate change over the last decade.

Two recent rapid attribution studies showed the European and North American heatwaves were virtually impossible without climate change, which is caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to the burning of coal, oil and gas and forest destruction.

The rapid attribution study by scientists at World Weather Attribution (WWA) examining the influence of climate change said a similar June heatwave in western Europe would have been around 3.5°C cooler if it had happened 50 years ago. 

Another WWA study found that the extreme North American heatwave – which impacted the 250th anniversary celebrations of the United States – was “much more likely and intense” due to human-induced climate change. The WWA study found the specific impacts driven by persistent, humid heat “would not have happened in a preindustrial climate”.

Will 2026 become the hottest year on record?

Scientists are already calculating that 2026 could become one of the hottest years on record, as they also anticipate  2027 might even exceed this year’s level. 

Amid rising emissions and strong indications the El Niño will continue to develop in coming months and dominate global climate patterns in the August-October period, Berkeley Earth calculated there’s a 69 percent chance that 2026 will become a record hot year.

The UK Met Office has also said 2026 will be remembered for the development of an “unprecedented” El Niño – possibly the largest such event since the 19th century. It said 2027 will likely replace 2024 as the warmest year on record and be another year to temporarily exceed 1.5°C.

This is cause for great concern because El Niño conditions can lead to further widespread extreme weather impacts, including droughts in some regions and intense storms and rainfall in others.

At risk, for example, is the Indian summer monsoon, which is already running well below normal rainfall, while Central America, west Pacific nations and tropical South America are also at risk of low rainfall. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization said El Niño conditions trigger failed harvests, livestock losses, rising household debt and migration in search of food and water.

Elsewhere, the El Niño can lead to more intense storms and extreme rainfall hitting central Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), parts of southern South America, the southern US and parts of the Horn of Africa.

How is the heatwave in Europe affecting river water levels and nuclear energy systems?

Water levels across four of Europe’s main rivers, the Loire, Po, Rhine and Danube rivers, reached record-lows in August. The prolonged dry conditions are putting growing pressure on water resources, crops, energy systems, river transport, tourism and ecosystems.

The water shortages also have a large flow-on effect to nuclear energy systems, which rely on pumped river water for cooling purposes. Due to the low water levels, pumping devices for nuclear power plants located along the Danube have been unable to reach the water.

As a result, Romania shut down its nuclear power plant, the Cernavodă, which produces about 20 percent of Romania’s electricity. Although Hungary narrowly escaped the full shutdown of its Paks nuclear plant, it was forced to cut output to just 10 percent as it shuttered three of its four reactors at a plant that normally produces nearly ​half of Hungary’s electricity.

What this reveals is the inherent vulnerability of nuclear power plants to water shortages and drought because a complete and long-lasting loss of water cooling would become a major safety threat. It’s just another reason why we need an energy system based on renewables, not nuclear or fossil fuels, and yet another reminder of the wide-ranging impacts from extreme weather events.

Record atmospheric CO₂ as fossil fuel emissions continue to rise

CO₂ emissions are dangerously high and rising. Governments must act urgently to bring them down. Data from the International Energy Agency showed the growth in energy-related CO₂ emissions slowed in 2025, rising by 0.4 percent, the slowest rate since 2021. However, CO₂ emissions still increased to a new high of nearly 38.4 billion tonnes (Gt), 5 percent above 2019 levels.

While this is clearly not good news, the roll-out of renewable energy is slowing down the growth in emissions. The expansion of solar power had the biggest contribution in slowing emissions growth last year, avoiding 1.5 Gt of annual CO₂ emissions (equal to half of India’s annual CO₂ emissions in 2025, for example). 

Despite this, record atmospheric CO₂ levels of about 427 parts-per-million were recorded in 2024, which is about 50 percent above pre-industrial levels.

These levels have continued to climb in 2026 and reached a monthly average record high of 432.3 parts per million in May at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory, which has the longest record of direct measurements of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

How far away are we from an exceedance of the 1.5°C limit?

Exceeding the 1.5°C global heating limit raises the risks of irreversible climate tipping points and severe environmental damage. The continued trend of record hot years exposes how the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. But this reality must serve as a rallying call to action for all countries to dramatically ratchet up climate ambition – above all developed countries that have an historical responsibility to act first and fastest.

The WMO has warned it’s very likely that the global temperature will temporarily exceed 1.5°C for at least one year between 2026 and 2030. It also said that it’s likely the 2026-2030 five-year average will exceed 1.5°C, with the associated risk of more extreme weather events.

What this means is that it’s time for political leadership! Governments must now respond and as pivotal moments and deadlines approach, world leaders need to accelerate the just transition away from fossil fuels with the speed and commitment to match the threat. 

What can governments do to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels

Governments can and must speed up the transition from fossil fuels to decentralised renewable energy systems powered by cheap, reliable and abundant energy sources like wind and solar. The good news is there’s already an accelerating shift to renewables. A Greenpeace International report found that the pace of change in the past 10 years offered great hope for a renewable future – due largely to the significant cost reduction of solar, wind power and battery storage technologies.

Close to 60 countries also agreed at the first conference for the transition away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta to collaborate and support the development of national and regional roadmaps to end fossil fuels. The task now for this ‘coalition of doers’ is to spearhead ambitious national action at home and, in a turbulent geopolitical space, drive concrete progress.

A just transition means that all communities can access the benefits of renewable energy and that none are disadvantaged through the transition. This means adequate and accessible funding, proper consultation and empowering communities to shape their own energy futures, and avoiding negative impacts on vulnerable communities, such as through mining for critical minerals. 

On the road to the UN General Assembly in September and the UN climate conference COP31 in November, governments must signal their intent to accelerate a just transition. That includes ensuring outcomes at COP31 that are aimed at increasing electricity’s share of final global energy demand actually become a pathway to ending fossil fuel dependence. It’s also time that governments held fossil fuel polluters to account by making them pay for climate damages.

The solutions are here and homegrown renewables are already winning: solar, wind and battery storage deliver cheap, reliable, 24/7 power today. By actively moving to reset the energy landscape with cheap and reliable renewable power, we can ultimately deliver true climate safety and stability. 

• Policy Briefing: A Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels
• Analysis: The Energy [R]evolution+10

Polluters Pay Pact

Sign the pact, record your story. Join the global movement to make polluters pay.

Join the movement

South Africans celebrated as their Constitutional Court ruled against Shell and Impact Africa’s oil exploration plans off the country’s Wild Coast. The legal victory demonstrated the importance of people-powered action against destructive neocolonial extractive industries across Africa. The judgement also strengthens the case for African governments to move away from an economic dependence on fossil fuels and towards reliable renewable energy and green employment.

What exactly did the Constitutional Court rule?

On 14 August 2026, South Africa’s Constitutional Court permanently halted Shell and Impact Africa’s oil and gas exploration off the country’s Wild Coast. This brought a years-long legal battle to a decisive end. South Africa’s apex court, upheld the 2022 Makhanda High Court finding that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted to Shell. It found that the South African government had not meaningfully consulted affected communities, as per the country’s laws. The South African Minister of the Mineral Resources and Energy, who was cited as the Main Respondent,  did not provide the requisite stewardship over the process.

View this post on Instagram

The court also set aside the original exploration right and its two renewals, rejecting the Supreme Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision to give Shell an opportunity to remedy the original failure through a later consultation process. The court warned that allowing this would mean “financial investment” could outweigh “grave constitutional violations”. 

For Wild Coast communities, the judgement confirmed that decisions affecting their ocean, livelihoods, culture and environment cannot be separated from their constitutional rights.

How did South Africans react to the judgement?

Wild Coast communities and environmental organisations welcomed the judgment as a historic victory for people whose livelihoods and cultural identities are closely connected to the ocean. Sustaining the Wild Coast’s Sinegugu Zukulu said the communities had gone to court “for the future and for future generations”, rather than for profit. “For centuries, colonialism and capitalism have enabled a system that ignores the rights of Indigenous People in their own land. At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.”

At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.

Activists and Wild Coast community members also stressed the importance of collaborating across all factions of society in achieving people-powered impact. Local fisher Sazise Maxwell Pekayo said the communities challenging the government were greatly supported by lawyers and civil society groups, adding: “Amandla! Power to the rights of communities!” Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbutuma said that true development must come from people deciding their own future. Natural Justice’s Delme Cupido said the case demonstrated that public participation is not simply about “ticking boxes”, but about putting people’s dignity at the centre of decisions that affect their lives, rights and cultural practices.

Why did South Africa’s court rule against Shell?

The South African Constitutional Court found the original process granting Shell its exploration license failed to give communities meaningful participation in a decision that could affect their livelihoods, environment, culture and spiritual relationship with the sea. Regarding the failure to consider the relevant communities’ spiritual and cultural rights, the High Court found that there was no evidence that the possibility of harm to ancestral beliefs and practices, or any remedial measures to guard against possible harm, were considered by the Minister.

The court rejected an approach that treated these concerns as merely competing against economic development. It emphasised South Africa’s history of apartheid, dispossession and marginalisation, explaining that commercial interests cannot automatically be placed on the same footing as constitutionally protected community rights. 

The court warned that speculative economic benefits cannot outweigh procedural justice where communities face direct environmental and cultural consequences. As the court put it, “Protection of ecological systems is inseparable from the protection of rights to dignity, culture and livelihood.” It also rejected the argument that consultation during a later renewal could cure the original illegality.

What does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement mean for local South African communities?

Beyond stopping Shell’s exploration, the judgment establishes a significant precedent for communities facing extractive projects along South Africa’s coastline. The court made clear that corporations cannot rely on financial investment to overcome failures to respect constitutional rights. 

Legal Resources Centre’s Kimal Harvey said the judgment confirmed that “no decisions about our land or resources can be made without us”, while Natural Justice’s Melissa Groenink-Groves described it as a victory for coastal communities, constitutional democracy and judicial accountability. 

“People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.

The court also referred to the 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change, emphasising that decisions must account for scientific evidence, international commitments and foreseeable impacts on present and future generations. Greenpeace Africa’s Eugene Perumal said the message was clear: “People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.” 

For coastal communities, that principle strengthens their ability to defend livelihoods, heritage and environmental rights when development threatens their way of life.

What is the background of Shell’s seismic blasting plans off South Africa’s Wild Coast?

Shell’s planned seismic exploration off South Africa’s Wild Coast involved a five-month survey using powerful airguns to send shockwaves into the seabed approximately every ten seconds. The technology was intended to locate potential oil and gas deposits, but raised serious concerns about its impact on marine ecosystems. 

Experts warned that seismic waves can disturb, injure or kill marine life, while successful exploration could lead to further risks from drilling, extraction, transportation and oil spills. For coastal communities that depend heavily on fishing and ecotourism, the potential consequences were particularly serious. 

The project also threatened endangered and scientifically important species, including southern right whales and the critically endangered coelacanth fish. Community activists and civil society organisations, including Greenpeace Africa, challenged Shell’s plans through the courts, while affected communities pursued further legal action after an initial interdict was unsuccessful. Thus began the years-long court battle.

The legal case became part of a wider debate about fossil fuel development, environmental protection and community rights.

How did South Africans react to news about Shell’s plans to conduct seismic blasting off the Wild Coast? 

Opposition to Shell’s plans quickly became a grassroots movement in South Africa. When the Amazon Warrior, the vessel carrying out the seismic surveys, arrived in Cape Town, hundreds of activists protested against its presence. Demonstrations subsequently spread to almost 100 towns, particularly along South Africa’s coastline. 

View this post on Instagram

For Indigenous coastal communities, the issue was about far more than environmental protection: the ocean is central to their livelihoods, culture and spirituality. Communities were already under pressure from industrial fishing and other threats to their economic security. Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbuthuma described the situation as another struggle for a community that had spent decades opposing mining on its land. “Now we also must fight against the mining of the ocean,” she said.

In December 2021, communities and activists joined forces to launch a matter in the Makhanda High Court where an interdict was granted. Shell opposed this and requested a review in the self-same High Court which upheld the original decision. Shell took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which, whilst not overturning the illegality of the granting of the right, simultaneously opened a backdoor for Shell to retrospectively meet the requirement for meaning consultation. The communities took the matter to the country’s apex court to overturn the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling.

Why did South Africans stand up against Shell’s planned oil exploration? 

Activists and local communities against the corporation’s Wild Coast project also pointed to Shell’s destructive history in Nigeria’s Niger Delta as a warning of what can happen when oil extraction causes environmental damage. Shell began producing oil there in 1958, while communities and environmental organisations have spent decades challenging the consequences of pollution and demanding accountability. 

Niger Delta communities experienced widespread destruction of ecosystems and livelihoods because of oil spills, and suffered the violent suppression of protests during the struggle against oil extraction. Shell’s Niger Delta track record demonstrated the devastating long-term consequences when corporate interests take precedence over local communities and environmental protection. 

Concerns about the Wild Coast therefore extend beyond the immediate effects of seismic testing: successful exploration could open the door to a much larger fossil fuel industry and the environmental risks that accompany it.

What risks did Shell’s oil exploration plans pose to Wild Coast communities?

The risk of Shell’s oil exploration plans to South African Wild Coast communities extended beyond individual species to the wider health of South Africa’s oceans. Seismic blasts not only affect marine life on which coastal communities depend, but also disturb marine ecosystems that serve as a major defence against the climate crisis. 

Oceans absorb carbon dioxide and heat, while kelp forests (abundant along South Africa’s coastline) provide valuable ecological benefits such as sequestering carbon, sheltering marine species and protecting shorelines from erosion. With marine ecosystems already under severe pressure from global heating and rising ocean temperatures, expanding fossil fuel exploration only stands to compound existing threats. The potential profits from oil and gas cannot justify risking communities, biodiversity and ecosystems that provide vital protection against climate change. 

Yet, oil and gas corporations continue promoting oil exploration across Africa because the continent’s resources offer lucrative opportunities for multinational corporations. While they frame extractivism as an economic and development opportunity for African countries, it ultimately serves neocolonial interests.

Despite fossil fuel companies’ already long history in South Africa, the country continues to face shockingly high unemployment, remaining the most unequal society in the world. South Africa’s own experience with oil and gas corporations demonstrates the opposite of the prosperity that fossil fuel companies promise. Despite the billions these multinational oil companies rake in every quarter, communities who live near oil infrastructure (like Wentworth, South Africa) tend to find themselves in downward poverty spirals.

Furthermore, weak global tax rules currently allow multinationals in the extractive sector to shift at least 12% of their global profits to tax havens, a figure that rises to 20% of windfall profits in commodity booms. This allows them to dodge billions of US dollars in taxes in countries across Africa, undermining governments’ resources to invest in essentials like schools, hospitals and climate protection.  

Does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement protect South Africa from neocolonial extractivism?

South Africa’s Constitutional Court judgement against Shell provides an important legal safeguard against extractive industries pursuing commercial interests at the expense of local communities. By affirming that meaningful public participation, cultural rights, livelihoods and environmental protection cannot be overridden by corporate investment, the judgment strengthens communities’ ability to challenge projects imposed without their consent. 

This may have wider significance for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, in particular, and the African continent more broadly where oil, gas and mineral extraction has reproduced unequal relationships in which multinational companies benefit from resources while local people carry environmental and social costs. The judgement establishes that economic development cannot simply be defined by corporate investment or promised jobs. African governments must follow suit and ensure that resource decisions respect communities’ constitutional and human rights.

View this post on Instagram

How else is Africa meant to generate energy and create more jobs?

This South African court judgment also strengthens the case for governments to move away from an economic model dependent solely or disproportionately on fossil fuel extraction and towards renewable energy and green employment. By steering focus on new fossil fuel projects, the decision forces decision makers to diversify energy production and invest in newer, greener and cleaner technologies. Renewable energy and modern electricity grids can create jobs without exposing communities to the pollution and environmental risks associated with oil and gas. 

Renewable energy is already becoming the dominant source of new electricity generation: around 85% of new global power capacity added in 2025 was renewable, principally solar and wind. For African countries, investing in these technologies can mean developing domestic industries, training skilled workers and creating employment closer to where people live. The transition therefore offers an opportunity to redefine development around locally-owned “decentralised” energy, decent work and long-term economic resilience.

How reliable is renewable energy?

Renewable energy offers benefits that extend beyond cutting carbon emissions. Solar and wind use energy sources that are freely available locally, reducing dependence on imported coal, oil and gas whose prices rise dramatically during wars, geopolitical disputes or supply disruptions. Renewable electricity can therefore strengthen political independence in Africa by reducing the influence of foreign fuel suppliers and unequal relationships with fossil fuel corporations over national energy policies. 

Batteries, smart grids and diversified renewable systems can further improve resilience by allowing countries to store electricity and rely on multiple local sources rather than vulnerable international supply chains. Although renewable infrastructure requires minerals and responsible mining, it can generate electricity for decades without continually consuming fuel, while producing substantially lower lifecycle emissions than fossil fuel systems.

Is renewable energy viable for South Africa?

South Africa has considerable potential to build a diverse renewable energy system. Its abundant sunshine makes utility-scale and rooftop solar particularly attractive, while strong coastal and inland wind resources provide opportunities for large-scale wind generation. Batteries can store solar and wind electricity for periods when the sun is not shining or wind production falls, while improved transmission networks and smart-grid technology can connect renewable resources with areas of high demand. Its current dependence on fossil fuels has had dire impacts on the country’s economy. After years of widespread blackouts (loadshedding), it is clear that South Africa’s  current energy production cannot match the demand. 

How will South Africa pay for a just transition to renewable energy?

Governments around the world, including in South Africa, could raise trillions of US dollars through more ambitious national and global taxes on polluting multinational corporations and super-rich individuals. For example, a new global polluter tax of 20% on the profits of the biggest oil and gas corporations, with tax rates progressively increasing over time, could raise more than US $100 billion every year in its first few years. These funds should not only be used to pay for the loss and damage caused by the extreme weather that these polluters drive, but also for climate adaptation and investment into cleaner newer energy technologies like renewables. 

South Africa, alongside all other governments, should seize this opportunity through supporting bold new global tax rules under the Global Tax Treaty currently being negotiated, while rolling out higher taxes on the wealthiest polluters at the national level immediately. It is time to end this cycle of suffering inflicted by the polluting extractives industry and to hold them to account by making them pay for a just transition that benefits all. 

Polluters Pay Pact

Sign the pact, record your story. Join the global movement to make polluters pay.

Join the movement