The death toll and destruction of civilian infrastructure from the US-Israel war on Iran has been devastating and, additionally, the conflict has sparked political turmoil, a global energy supply shock and soaring cost-of-living pressures that are leading to looming economic headwinds.

Inadvertently, now 100 days after the start of the conflict, we can see that it is also supercharging the world’s shift to renewable energy in a global disruption that is now presenting a seismic opportunity to free ourselves of fossil fuel dependency.

But this systemic shift to clean, secure and reliable renewable energy must be planned with a long-term perspective as part of a fair, fast and funded just transition as governments work to meet their Paris Agreement obligations to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Where we were 10 years ago

The 2015 Paris Agreement was a landmark moment and on its 10th anniversary in 2025, the Agreement was lauded for helping to accelerate the clean energy transition, lower projected global greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the projected temperature increase.

Despite this, our climate has continued to warm and the years 2015-2025 have been the hottest 11 years on record, placing the 1.5°C threshold under threat. That’s the bad news. 

The good news, however, is the rapid pace of change in the renewables sector. Back in 2015, Greenpeace’s visionary Energy [R]evolution scenario was a transformative, nuclear-free blueprint for a 100 % renewable future. It was far more ambitious than the International Energy Agency’s projections and today, we can see that the E[R] scenarios were not far off the mark. 

In fact, in the past 10 years, the energy landscape has changed tremendously and the most visible success of the last decade lies in the sheer velocity of the renewable rollout. For the first time, wind and solar are growing faster than global electricity consumption, actively eating the market share of fossil fuels, mainly due to the significant cost reduction of renewables.

Now, amid the current energy supply crisis, the scale of change witnessed in the past 10 years offers great hope for a renewable future.

Electrification, expanding solar and wind power and lower costs 

Between 2015 and 2025, global solar power capacity increased from 226 Gigawatt (GW) in 2015 to 2,392 GW in 2025. Electricity generation through solar power actually exceeded the ambitious projections made in the E[R] scenario and by far exceeded the modest projections made by the IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO).

In the same timeframe, wind power capacity increased from 416 GW in 2015 to 1,291 GW in 2025. Actual wind power generation in 2025 proved to be slightly below the E[R] projections, but was substantially higher than the WEO scenario. Further developments with regard to offshore wind in particular offer hope that in the coming years reality will surpass the E[R] projection.

The reason for such successful renewable electricity growth is the significant cost reduction. The E[R] scenario underestimated the cost reduction potential between 2015 and 2025 for solar and wind. Solar reduced costs per kilowatt by around 70 % while the E[R] projected 42%. Both onshore wind and offshore wind were able to halve costs while the E[R] projected 6% and 27% respectively.  

Political change, the energy transformation and a global supply shock

In the past decade, the failure of governments to reduce global total energy demand has meant, however, that the growth in solar and wind only covered increased energy demand rather than replacing fossil fuel use. 

Now, the war on Iran has sharpened both the urgency and inevitability of a transition to renewables, exposing how an engineered dependence on fossil fuels is a massive geopolitical liability that demands systemic and broad sectoral changes.

After the UN climate talks COP30 spectacularly failed to agree last year on the need to develop a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels despite wide support, 57 countries met in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April 2026 to explicitly discuss how to transition away from fossil fuels.

What we can say is that the geopolitical faultlines are becoming very clear: on one side there are countries like the US that are rusted on to a ‘drill, baby, drill’ approach and on the other, there are countries ready to plan for and implement a post-fossil-fuel future.

But what governments must do now is ensure the policy frameworks are in place to enable a fair, fast and funded transition, because beyond economics, the shift is about resilience.

Decentralised, democratically owned renewable energy systems controlled and owned by the people are harder to sabotage and immune to shipping disruptions, ensuring that even in times of crisis, our homes, schools, and hospitals remain powered and continue to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits for all.

What comes next

What the ambitious vision of the Energy [R]evolution and the staggering acceleration of renewables in the past 10 years show is that the future of our energy transition is bright.

Critically, however, the nations currently leading this transformation and securing the rewards of a clean energy future demonstrate that rapid change is a deliberate result of active political choices and strong policy frameworks.

Aaron Gray-Block is a Climate Political Communications Manager at Greenpeace International.  

Read our reports:

The Energy [R]evolution+10

A Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels

From wartime Ukraine to the Iran energy shock, decentralised renewables are emerging as a real security solution. Community solar and local grids can protect households from price spikes and war‑fuelled crises, showing governments exactly how to protect their citizens.

How renewables became a security imperative in Ukraine

In an era defined by geopolitical instability and soaring household bills, a quiet revolution is taking place where the stakes are highest. Amid continuous infrastructure attacks by Russia, communities across Ukraine are constructing a blueprint for global energy security. Forward-thinking municipalities are actively transforming their energy architecture, moving away from a fragile dependence on fossil fuels to build independent, decentralised clean energy networks. 

Most movingly, this transformation is being championed by the people of Slavutych – the purpose-built city constructed to rehome the displaced workers and families who left Chornobyl after the 1986 nuclear disaster. Decades after fleeing a devastating nuclear catastrophe, this community has pioneered Ukraine’s first municipal solar cooperative, installing crowd-funded solar arrays on public rooftops to reclaim power over their town’s economic future.

Similar distributed networks are taking root across the country: from the solar-and-heat-pump rebuilding of the Horenka primary care clinic to the resilient power sharing of the Kyiv Green Apartment Building Association and the Trostyanets multi-apartment building reconstruction. Despite dealing with active wartime threats, the municipality of Chortkiv became the first city to sign the Gas-Free Cities Declaration, committing itself to a total fossil gas phase-out. With this historic move, the community is actively breaking its dependence on the volatile fossil fuel system, choosing instead a path towards community resilience, safety, and long-term economic prosperity. 

If a city navigating an active war can completely commit to a future free of fossil gas, every city on Earth can. These pioneer projects in Ukraine reveal a profound truth for the rest of the world: decentralised renewable energy is not just a climate solution, it is a foundational global security imperative.

Fossil fuel energy systems engineered for crisis

Forward‑thinking Ukrainian municipalities are actively building resilience, yet much commentary elsewhere still treats modern energy crises as isolated, freak incidents. In truth, the problem is structural.

While decentralised communities insulate themselves from instability, our hyper-centralised global reliance on oil and gas exposes everyday citizens and governments to constant, unmanageable risks.

We see this unfolding right now in the compounding economic shocks following the war involving Iran. Gas prices rose for ordinary households across European capitals, while energy importing nations across Africa and Asia are bearing the brunt of the Middle East conflict’s energy shocks.

The sudden surge in global fuel prices has completely priced local economies out of the market, forcing governments to ration energy, mandate rotating power cuts, and, in some parts of Asia, even restrict household cooking gas.

As we see, volatility usually hits domestic budgets directly, anchoring the macro-crisis in painful daily trade-offs for families forced to navigate soaring utility bills alongside rising food costs. Such a disruption is not a failure of the fossil fuel system; it is the predictable, inevitable outcome of how it is designed to work.

The predictable volatility trap of fossil fuels

For decades, the public has been sold a corporate narrative: fossil gas is a reliable “bridge fuel” necessary to stabilise energy networks. Yet, history tells a starkly different story of cyclical crises. Whenever geopolitical hostility erupts – from the 1970s OPEC oil embargoes, to the global price spikes triggered by Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to modern supply crunches around the Strait of Hormuz – global commodity prices shoot up with algorithmic predictability. These are not separate events; they are the recurring symptoms of a broken energy system engineered around two core vulnerabilities:

Physical infrastructure is fragile. Fossil fuel systems rely on rigid, highly concentrated bottlenecks – vulnerable shipping choke points, international pipelines and massive processing plants – that double as high-value military targets. The moment geopolitical hostility ignites, global financial markets immediately panic over potential supply cuts. Speculative trading floors violently spike global commodity prices before a single drop of fuel is even lost. We see this vulnerability starkly in Ukraine, where strikes systematically targeted centralised thermal power plants and the energy grid, plunging millions into darkness, leaving entire communities to freeze in their homes. This demonstrates well how easily a centralised energy architecture can be weaponised to trigger global financial panic.  

Corporate war profiteering. The physical fragility of the grid is directly converted into massive private wealth because the system is engineered to capitalise on crises. A textbook example of this occurred during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine: as Europe rightfully phased out Russian pipeline gas, LNG suppliers aggressively exploited the supply shock, outbidding vulnerable regions and locking countries into expensive, decades-long contracts. These corporations never absorb geopolitical shocks; instead, they immediately pass the inflated costs down to consumers. Consequently, while ordinary families are forced into devastating energy poverty, fossil fuel corporations consistently register record-breaking windfall profits during wartime.

The moment peace is on the horizon, this entire profit machine stalls: when a ceasefire was announced to pause hostilities, oil giants saw their shares immediately tumble with BP dropping 6% and Shell losing 4.7%. The market’s reaction exposes a profound truth: the fossil fuel business model treats international chaos as a corporate asset, turning global instability and human suffering into investor payouts. 

The solution that breaks the loop is distributed clean energy that permanently dismantles this entire apparatus. By shifting power generation away from vulnerable bottlenecks to millions of local, interconnected points – rooftop solar, community wind co‑operatives and regional battery storage – we physically remove the targets.

When a disaster occurs, these localised power networks keep critical hospital operating rooms, clean water pumps, and local schools fully operational. Local sunlight and wind cannot be manipulated by speculators, or turned off by a hostile foreign power.

The independence illusion of the gas industry driving real‑world insecurity

To protect corporate interests, the energy lobby continues to claim that expanding domestic oil and gas extraction – or swapping one foreign supplier for another – will deliver national energy independence and cheap energy bills. This claim is false in most countries where fossil fuel prices are tied to volatile global commodity market prices.

Data compiled by global energy authorities confirms that the regions navigating modern economic shocks with the greatest resilience are precisely those that have scaled local renewable energy capacity and prioritised aggressive energy efficiency.

Expanding gas infrastructure creates permanent economic and environmental traps. Beyond binding communities to decades of unjust debt, burning these fuels accelerates the extreme weather events tearing through people’s everyday safety net and global stability. Scientists can now calculate how corporate pollution has supercharged deadly heatwaves, devastating floods, and prolonged agricultural droughts – making these catastrophes structurally impossible without human-induced warming.

This is no longer just a scientific debate – it is an international legal reality. Reinforcing this accountability, a historic landmark ruling by the United Nations General Assembly has declared that tackling the climate crisis is a strict legal duty under international law, not a voluntary political choice. Governments that keep expanding and burning fossil fuels are now legally vulnerable for the thousands of early deaths caused by supercharged heatwaves, the complete destruction of homes and livelihoods swallowed by catastrophic floods, and the systemic agricultural breakdowns causing global food shortages. While these climate disasters impact almost everyone, they crush the most marginalised and financially sensitive populations first and hardest.

Renewables as public safety

To prevent future systemic shocks, governments must make sure they reach their net-zero targets by immediately pivoting public resources into tangible energy upgrades. Transitioning to decentralised renewables is no longer just an environmental goal – it is a core pillar of public safety and household self-defense.

Towns in war-torn Ukraine have already given the world a solid template: from crowd-funded municipal solar in Slavutych to solar-powered clinics in Horenka and Trostyanets, community-led clean energy is actively defending human life under the harshest conditions. Scaling these resilient models globally is the ultimate investment to shield communities from corporate exploitation, enhance economic prosperity, and ensure true security.

Accelerate decentralised renewables and efficiency: Replicate Ukraine’s pioneering community models globally by prioritizing public investments into decentralised municipal solar grids, regional battery storage reserves, deep building insulation upgrades, and residential heat pump installations. This lowers baseload demand and permanently shields regional economies from global market speculation. 

Halt all fossil infrastructure expansion: Enact immediate moratoriums on new gas drilling exploration, pipeline infrastructure, and LNG terminals. Switching one pipeline or LNG supplier for another does not reduce dependency.

Enforce systemic accountability: Tax fossil fuel profits — clawing back the wealth generated from wartime profiteering and climate-induced tragedies to directly finance the public deployment of clean energy systems for low-and middle-income households worldwide. 

The ultimate lesson from Ukraine’s resilient municipalities and the economic ripples of the global energy crisis is clear: true security cannot be built on a volatile, centralised foundation. We must revoke the social and political licence of the fossil fuel industry, reclaiming their profits to build a community-owned, genuinely resilient energy landscape that serves people over profit. 

Take action now

The fossil fuel system is built to maximise corporate profits while passing the risk to everyday people. Join us in demanding that governments hold energy profiteers financially accountable and mandate an immediate, fair transition to local clean energy.

Sign the petition to demand permanent taxes on fossil fuel profits and fund a secure, renewable energy future for all.

Make war profiteers pay

Tax fossil fuel profits to support communities hit by disasters and invest in energy independence.

Add your name

Reka Hunyadi is the Communications Lead of Greenpeace’s Global Gas campaign with Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe.

It has been 100 days since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran on 28 February 2026. In that time, communities in Iran and across the wider Middle East have faced death, displacement, bombardment, blackouts, water shortages and deepening insecurity, while the shockwaves of war have spread far beyond the region through higher energy costs, rising food prices and worsening economic instability.

The attacks were predicted to trigger the worst energy crisis in history, according to the International Energy Agency, with around 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 25% of its seaborne oil supplies at risk in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The impact, on paper, was set to be bigger than the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Since then, there have been multiple rounds of negotiations, ceasefire proposals and back‑channel talks, but fighting and strikes have continued, and the Strait of Hormuz has still not fully reopened to normal traffic, keeping markets and people on edge.

Why it matters

This is not just a foreign policy story. It is about the price of fuel, food and transport, about who gets left exposed when economies depend on fossil fuel chokepoints, and about who gets rich when everything goes wrong. One hundred days on, the war on Iran has become another brutal reminder that fossil fuel dependency turns geopolitical violence into a global cost of living crisis.

100 days of war, deaths, destruction and pollution

War is killing thousands of people and wrecking lives. In Iran and neighbouring countries, just as in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, civilians have been killed and injured in airstrikes and missile attacks, homes and apartment blocks have been reduced to rubble, and critical infrastructure like hospitals, water systems and power grids has been damaged or pushed to the brink. Families are living through repeated blackouts, water cuts and fuel shortages, and many have been forced to flee their homes in search of safety.

The financial cost of the war on Iran is staggering too. Independent trackers – based on sources such as the Pentagon’s briefing to Congress and a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies – estimate that, in its first 100 days, the war on Iran has already cost US taxpayers more than 100 billion US dollars in direct military spending and related economic losses, money that could have funded schools, hospitals and clean energy instead. That does not include the much longer‑term costs of rebuilding shattered infrastructure, treating physical and psychological trauma, or dealing with the climate impacts of a conflict built on fossil fuel infrastructure.

The war is also a major source of carbon pollution. An analysis of the first 14 days of the US–Israel war against Iran estimates that it generated around 5 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions, roughly equal to the combined yearly emissions of the 84 lowest‑emitting countries in the world. Those emissions come from military jets, ships and vehicles, from burning fuel and munitions, and from fires and damage to industrial facilities and energy infrastructure.

Scientists are warning that this war is part of a wider pattern in which oil, gas and water infrastructure are deliberately turned into targets, with consequences that can last for decades. Strikes on refineries, fuel depots, desalination plants and pipelines do not only kill and injure in the moment, they also poison air, soil and water and undermine the basic systems people rely on to survive.

Beyond direct strikes, the war has intensified the dangers posed by oil tankers moving through one of the world’s most sensitive chokepoints. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow corridor carrying a huge share of the world’s oil and LNG, and Greenpeace and other experts have long warned that it is a high‑risk zone for accidents, collisions and spills. In recent months, satellite images have shown oil slicks and pollution from tanker incidents and damaged infrastructure in and around the Gulf, underlining how quickly a military escalation in such a crowded shipping lane can turn into an environmental disaster that is literally visible from space.

100 days of higher fuel prices and obscene war profits

In the weeks after the attacks, fears over the Strait of Hormuz and wider regional escalation pushed Brent crude above 100 US dollars a barrel, with the spot price spiking to about 138 US dollars on 7 April and averaging around 117 US dollars for the month. These are levels not seen since the energy price shock that followed Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. For households, that meant one more squeeze on already stretched budgets. For fossil fuel companies, it meant another jackpot.

• The world’s top 100 oil and gas companies were making more than 30 million US dollars in extra profit every hour in the first month of the US‑Israeli war on Iran.
  
• If prices stay around 100 dollars a barrel, they could pocket around 234 billion US dollars in additional profit by the end of 2026, with giants like Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and ExxonMobil among the biggest winners.
  
• Shell alone made 6.9 billion US dollars in first‑quarter profit, more than double the previous quarter, as the war on Iran helped keep prices high.
  
• Europe’s four biggest oil majors – Shell, TotalEnergies, BP and Equinor – reported over 18 billion US dollars in adjusted earnings after tax in Q1 2026, an 80 percent jump quarter on quarter.
  
• In the European Union, oil companies were making about 92.8 million US dollars a day in war profits in the first weeks of the conflict, with diesel driving much of the excess.
  
• In the UK, the market value of major North Sea drillers including Shell, BP and TotalEnergies rose by about 73.5 billion pounds in just four weeks after the first attacks.

This is what fossil fuel dependence looks like in practice: people pay more to drive, heat their homes and move goods, while producers and traders cash in on volatility.

If that sounds familiar, it should. This is the fossil fuel industry’s war playbook: a crisis hits, supply fears are amplified, prices rise, profits surge, and then the same companies argue that the answer is more drilling, more gas terminals and more dependence on the very system that made everyone vulnerable in the first place.

100 days of rising food prices and Big Ag windfall profits

The war did not just hit energy. It hit food systems. Food prices rose to their highest level since 2023 in April, driven in part by the conflict in the Middle East, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. This matters because when energy and fertiliser prices rise together, food inflation can spread quickly through farming, transport, packaging and supermarket shelves.

In March, Greenpeace warned that disruption to fertiliser supply chains caused by the war and the closure risk around the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a new global food price shock. Its reporting showed how the crisis was exposing the fragility of a food system hooked on fossil fuel-based fertilisers and long, vulnerable supply chains.

By May, the pattern of profiteering became clearer. Fertiliser firms made bumper profits off the back of the Iran war supply crisis, as farmers’ livelihoods were squeezed. 

Farmers face more expensive fertiliser and fuel. Families around the world face higher grocery bills. And as with oil, a handful of giant firms are turning the crisis into another revenue stream. The result is a food system that is profitable for shareholders, but dangerously brittle for everyone else.

100 days of transport costs, disruption and protest

The transport sector is responsible for around 60% of total oil demand. When fossil fuel prices rise, transport becomes the messenger that delivers the shock to everyone else.

Higher fuel costs push up bus fares, airline tickets, freight rates and eventually the price of everyday goods. In the weeks and months after the first strikes on Iran, protests over fuel and transport costs erupted from Kenya, where people took to the streets against record petrol prices and fare hikes and at least four people were killed, to Haiti, where workers demanded wage increases to keep up with fuel and food inflation. In Pakistan, truckers and commuters protested over diesel and bus fares, while in France and other European countries, farmers and drivers blocked roads and fuel depots to denounce soaring costs and government inaction.

These protests are a rational response to a rigged system that expects ordinary people to absorb each new fossil‑fuelled crisis, while those with private jets, mega‑yachts and record dividends carry on as usual. Without a rapid shift away from oil‑based economy and a fair sharing of costs, every new shock will keep landing hardest on those who did least to cause it.

100 days of governments responding to the crisis

The last 100 days have exposed a system designed to fail people and reward profiteers. Trump’s war on Iran has deepened suffering in the region, but it has also made life harder and more expensive for tens of millions of people thousands of kilometres away because our economies remain tied to fossil fuels for energy, plastics and fertilisers.

Global demand for oil has dipped slightly: the International Energy Agency now expects oil demand to fall by more than 2% this quarter, with most of that drop coming from developing countries in Asia, the region most dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Alongside this, 76 countries have rolled out emergency measures to cut oil use further, from speed limits and work‑from‑home schemes to fuel‑saving campaigns and support for public transport.

These moves, combined with painful price‑driven demand destruction, have helped richer and more resilient economies insulate themselves from the worst impacts for now. But these measures have clear limits, especially for poorer countries that cannot easily shield their populations or absorb another price spike. The crisis is by no means over, and each day the world remains hooked on oil and gas, the next escalation or supply disruption will bring the same vulnerability back again.

What needs to happen

No one should be getting rich off war and chaos. Governments should tax fossil fuel and agribusiness war profits, protect households from rising bills, and accelerate the shift to renewable energy, efficient homes, better public transport, reuse systems and more local, resilient food production.

A serious response to the last 100 days would be not to double down on the system that caused the shock. It means taxing windfall war profits from oil, gas and fertiliser companies. It means faster public investment in renewables, storage, insulation and efficient transport. It means protecting people first through social tariffs, public transport support, emergency food measures and help for farmers to move away from fossil fuel fertilisers.

It also means treating the last 100 days as a warning. Efficient government responses, people-centred solutions, taxation of windfall war profits and ambitious renewable energy deployment are not side issues. They are what energy security, food security and economic stability look like in a world where fossil fuel dependency keeps turning crises into global punishment.

Make war profiteers pay

Tax fossil fuel profits to support communities hit by disasters and invest in energy independence.

Add your name

Bonn, Germany – The UN climate negotiations in Bonn will be a critical moment to sustain emerging political momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels and efforts to end forest destruction by 2030 amid new warnings of a looming 1.5°C exceedance.

The Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB64) comes 100 days after the US-Israel war on Iran sparked a global energy shock and after 57 countries met in Santa Marta, Colombia in April for the world’s first conference on the transition away from fossil fuels – a landmark moment signalling political winds of change. 

It also comes in the wake of a milestone UN General Assembly resolution aimed at advancing implementation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on climate change and state responsibility, making it clear that climate action is an irrefutable legal obligation.

Tracy Carty, Climate Politics Expert, Greenpeace International said: “In the midst of an energy crisis that has exposed the risks of fossil fuel dependence, some countries remain rusted onto the ‘drill, baby drill’ approach. But elsewhere, momentum is progressively building for a just transition from countries ready to plan for and implement a post-fossil-fuel future.

“The task now for all of these willing states is to spearhead ambitious national action at home and, in a turbulent geopolitical space, drive concrete progress at COP31 and beyond. That involves the development of national fossil fuel phase out roadmaps as part of fair, fast and funded transition plans that protect people and build long-term climate and energy stability.” 

Ahead of SB64, Greenpeace International has produced a policy briefing outlining the core elements of a just transition away from fossil fuels and the urgent, priority actions needed from national governments and through global co-operation to make it a reality.[1]

The Bonn conference also comes after the World Meteorological Organization warned in May it’s “very likely” the global average temperature increase will temporarily exceed 1.5°C for at least one year between 2026 and 2030.[2] Greenpeace is calling for that scenario to become a rallying call to action, especially for developed countries, to urgently ramp up climate and biodiversity ambition.

An Lambrechts, Biodiversity Politics Expert, Greenpeace International said: “Ending deforestation and forest degradation is an essential element of the 1.5°C solution and it’s now mission critical that we maximise synergies across a fragmented landscape of current climate, biodiversity and finance initiatives to secure an end to forest destruction by 2030. 

“The COP30 presidency-led forest roadmap is a major opportunity that can help accelerate delivery of forest protection commitments. Bonn is a crucial moment to build a coalition of frontrunner countries and ensure the roadmap becomes a practical pathway to align existing and emerging actions to not only ensure forests remain standing, but whether they remain functioning. The time to act is now.”

Greenpeace International has also produced a policy briefing Beyond Deforestation, outlining how the 2030 forest and biodiversity targets are increasingly not only a political aspiration, but also significant benchmarks that inform State and corporate legal obligations as part of an emerging legal-policy paradigm centered on ecosystem integrity.[3]

ENDS

Notes:

[1] A Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels: Policy Briefing

[2] WMO: Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update 2026-2035

[3] Beyond Deforestation: Ecosystem Integrity and the Emerging Legal Paradigm

Contacts:

Aaron Gray-Block, Climate Politics Communications Manager, Greenpeace International, aaron.gray-block@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org