It’s official: an El Niño has been confirmed and with it, expectations of another record hot-year – most likely in 2027 – and bringing with it the anticipation of extreme weather impacts and disruptions to global food production.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has said there is a chance a “very strong” El Niño could form – the first since 2016, adding to growing concerns for the impacts the natural weather phenomenon might cause on an already warmer planet.

After the past 11 years have been the world’s warmest on record due to climate change, this year’s El Niño could become one of the strongest ever recorded and temporarily push the average global temperature above the 1.5°C limit adopted in the Paris Agreement.

The confirmation of an El Niño came as scientists declared in the annual Indicators of Global Climate Change that our climate is heating at an all-time high of around 0.27°C per decade, driven primarily by record-high greenhouse gas levels, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels.

They added, in a report presented at the 2026 Bonn Climate Change Conference, that there are around three years remaining of the 1.5°C carbon budget and the 1.5°C temperature threshold could be exceeded on a longer-term basis by 2030 as the Earth is getting hotter, faster.

This means that in the short-term an El Niño will likely lead to another spike in global temperatures and on a longer-term basis, human-induced global warming is worsening and progressively destabilising our Earth systems. That’s the bad news.

Climate policies and renewable energy could reduce global heating

But there is good news – and bear with me because it is technical: while describing a new set of global emission scenarios, academics recently decided their worst-case scenario of global heating is now considered ‘implausible’.

In fact, emissions in the new high scenario are lower than the previous high scenarios, effectively retiring the scenario in which global temperatures could rise by about 4.5°C by the end of the century. This change is thanks to pro-climate policy choices from governments and the massive expansion in renewable energy since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015. 

Instead of welcoming this news, however, the world’s chief climate denialist, US President Donald Trump, argued the scientists had been WRONG! WRONG! WRONG. This is not the first time Trump has misrepresented climate science, but it was nevertheless picked up by conservative media outlets and used to undermine climate science.

Other media, however, conducted a fact-check and exposed Trump’s mischaracterisation of the data because it’s important to understand this worst-case scenario was never the only projected pathway. 

Scientists have actually been using a range of scenarios in models to understand what might happen to our climate in the future – based mainly on how much greenhouse gases are emitted from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

So ‘retiring’ the worst-case scenario was good news and confirmed that the clean energy transition is leading to lower projected global greenhouse gas emissions and a reduction in the projected temperature increase. But it also came with a warning: the most optimistic scenario for the 21st Century was also ‘retired’ and we cannot rule out extreme warming.

Positive political signals starting to emerge

The UNEP warned last year we are still headed for average warming of 2.3 to 2.5°C by 2100 and the latest round of government climate action plans (NDCs) submitted for the COP30 UN climate talks in Brazil last year failed to bridge the 1.5°C ambition gap. 

These NDCs combined would only lead to a 12% cut in global GHG emissions by 2035, woefully short of the 60% global reduction needed, compared to 2019 levels. 

After COP30 failed to agree on 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 end fossil fuel usage, signalling a clear political shift and hopes of further change. 

It’s a shift that’s been given a strong impetus by the global energy supply shock sparked by the war on Iran, which is inadvertently “supercharging” the world’s renewables boom.

Swifter action is needed, however, as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said global temperatures are set to stay at or near record levels in the next five years, while May 2026  became the second warmest on record according to Copernicus Climate Change Service. 

The impacts of an El Niño: extreme weather and agricultural risks

While climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe, the development of the El Niño can further destabilise an already volatile atmospheric system.

An El Niño often leads to increased rainfall in parts of southern South America, the southern US, parts of the Horn of Africa and central Asia, but drier conditions over Central America, northern South America, the Caribbean, Australia, Indonesia and parts of southern Asia.

Although an El Niño is notoriously complex, in the words of UN Secretary-General Guterres, it can pour fuel on the fire of a warming world and lead to severe and unpredictable weather.

The onset of drought during the El Niño is another risk, impacting agriculture and raising concerns of failed rains, dying crops and rising food prices. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warns of risks in the Sahel, Southern Africa, Central America and the Caribbean, in addition to agricultural drought risk across South and Southeast Asia. 

Ocean warming and an Earth energy imbalance

NOAA’s declaration of an El Niño came after the UN’s third World Ocean Assessment (WOA) –  found that our ocean is also under mounting stress from overexploitation, pollution and the accelerating impacts of climate change.

The WOA reports that the ocean has already absorbed over 90% of the excess heat and 30% of the carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels. Alarmingly, however, about 16% of the total increase in ocean heat content since 1955 has occurred since 2018 as surplus heat continues to get stored in the ocean.

Ultimately, the WOA report suggests global heating is worsening as that and other data start to raise concerns about whether climate change is potentially accelerating – an issue discussed at the UN talks in Bonn at the presentation of the Indicators of Global Climate Change (IGCC). 

The data presented about the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) – which measures how fast heat is accumulating in the climate system – shows this imbalance has more than doubled in recent decades and is a key factor behind the unprecedented high rate of global warming.

If emission levels continue increasing, this imbalance is expected to become even more lopsided and average temperatures will continue rising.

IPCC next assessment cycle and need for science-informed action plans

The IGCC data gives us a timely insight into climatic changes as we wait for the next reporting cycle from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will meet in October 2026 to decide when its 7th Assessment Report (AR7) will be finalised.

At the past five IPCC meetings, countries have been deadlocked over a timeline for this critical three-part assessment report. It’s a deceptively important decision that will determine whether the AR7 will be finished by mid-2028 to inform the second Global Stocktake (GST2) of climate action.

It’s absolutely vital that the next round of government climate targets are informed by the latest IPCC reports. Any delay to the AR7 timeline would be like postponing a critical diagnosis. As our climate’s stability rapidly deteriorates, the treatment becomes harder and more expensive.

At the first global stocktake, at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, the world agreed to transition away from fossil fuels and to end deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. These momentous decisions are now the central element in our efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

But government action is still dangerously misaligned with the urgency required, threatening the existence of climate vulnerable states such as those in the Pacific and exposing millions around the world to the harms of escalating climate impacts. 

In Bonn and elsewhere, we’ve also witnessed attempts to undermine the scientific basis of action. This is despite the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion and a subsequent UN resolution calling on governments to align their policies with their legal obligations to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Speaking after Greenpeace Australia Pacific published a report outlining a Pacific-led vision for the just transition away from fossil fuels, Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Republic of the Marshall Islands, said at a press conference in Bonn: “Despite legal and scientific proof, 1.5°C is being questioned and science is under attack.” She added that “suggestions that we can adapt to 3°C are tantamount to declaring the Pacific a sacrifice zone.”

It’s a reality check we need to hear, especially as we witness escalating temperatures and now a looming El Niño as our climate edges closer to a 1.5°C exceedance. What matters now is what we do today and tomorrow because no level of warming is safe.

It’s mission critical that we defend the emerging political momentum for a just transition and forest protection to give us the best chance of limiting global heating. 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. 

While we cannot reverse decades of GHG emissions, prevent the formation of an El Niño or future warming, we can help ensure our children have a more stable climate in future. As we enter this supercharged moment and face its unpredictable impacts, we must act with the urgency required for both people and planet – our climate depends on it.

Aaron Gray-Block is a Climate Politics Communications Manager with Greenpeace International.

Climate change and plastic pollution may look like separate issues. But they are, in fact, two sides of the same crisis: the industry’s addiction to fossil fuels. 

Fossil fuel emissions account for 89% of the CO2 that drives global warming and 99% of all plastic is made from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency projects that petrochemicals and plastics will be the single largest driver of growth in world oil demand in the coming decades. By 2030, plastic production alone is projected to consume one in every six barrels of oil.

The world is in desperate need of a course correction, and this June at the Bonn Climate Change Conference as governments, scientists and NGOs have gathered again to discuss the climate crisis, Greenpeace hosted a side event to aimed at discussing ways to solve these crises together if we are to solve either of them at all. 

One addiction, two crises 

Climate warming and the plastics crisis have the same root cause: extracting and using  fossil fuels, which also leads to producing too much plastic. 

The similarities continue with something less discussed: the twin crises actively worsen each other. Plastics emit greenhouse gases throughout their entire lifecycle — from extraction and manufacturing to transport and disposal. In fact, plastics account for more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire aviation sector. 

As climate change raises temperatures and intensifies UV radiation, it accelerates the rate at which plastics break down into microplastics — making them more pervasive, more toxic, and harder to recover. Climate change worsens the plastics crisis. The plastics crisis worsens climate change. They are not parallel problems. They are in fact a feedback loop.

The good news

It’s not too late though. Alternatives for the dual crisis are readily available. Our recent report shows how renewable energy capacity has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years since the Paris Agreement was reached – outstripping predictions as the energy landscape underwent tremendous change. Denmark has, for example, powered 88% of its grid with renewable energy in recent years, and Costa Rica powered 98.6% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2025. 

Looking towards plastics, we know that implementing reuse systems and other policies to reduce plastic use could virtually eliminate plastic packaging pollution by 2040. Everyday, we see solutions and innovations spring from many parts of the globe, proving that the barriers are not technical, but political.  

Thirty years of ignoring the F word

For more than thirty years, the UNFCCC — the world’s primary forum, where most of the world governments come together to discuss how to solve climate change — failed to say the most important word relevant to its mandate: fossil fuels. At COP28 in Dubai in 2023, the COP outcome explicitly recognised the primary driver of the problem it exists to resolve.

This is not by accident. A small number of governments and corporate actors with significant fossil fuel interests have consistently used the procedural requirements of consensus-based multilateralism to block that language. t In a consensus-based process the obstructive governments and fossil-fuel interests can run down the clock in every negotiating session without ever having to commit to meaningful action. 

The very same governments — and many of the same corporations with lobbyists embedded in their official delegations — are running identical playbooks in Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, preventing the Treaty from addressing the issue at its source and blocking measures to cut production and use. Same players, same moves, same outcomes — unless we choose differently. 

We still have a chance, but it’s fleeting. 

For both the UNFCCC and the Global Plastics Treaty, the imperative is the same: stop managing the symptoms and address the systems that produce them.

For climate change, this means a just transition away from fossil fuels that is fast, fair, and funded, with governments advancing global co-operation and delivering credible national roadmaps to get there.

For the Global Plastics Treaty, it means addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning upstream by cutting plastic production. 

What can the Plastics Treaty learn from the UNFCCC? 

The Paris Agreement’s architecture — voluntary, nationally-determined commitments, no binding limits on fossil fuel production — has repeatedly been weaponised by some governments against meaningful action and made the 1.5℃ limit harder to reach. 

While the Paris Agreement has helped to accelerate the clean energy transition, lower projected global greenhouse gas emissions and reduced the projected temperature increase, there is still a large 1.5°C ambition gap that needs to be closed. Simply put, more needs to be done.

The Global Plastics Treaty must not be a repeat of the delays we’ve seen in climate action. It needs global, legally binding measures to reduce plastic production from the outset, coupled with investment in reuse systems, product redesign, and improved waste management, with no country left behind in that transition. A treaty focused exclusively on waste management — the end of the pipe, not the tap — will perpetuate the problem it is meant to fix. Neither crisis affords that kind of time.

Consensus Kills 

While no country should be left behind, and while consensus can play an important role in building broad-based support, we cannot continue to allow a small number of blocking states to hold back the will of the majority and the mandate of the people. We hear whispers that multilateralism is dead. But multilateralism is alive. It is being stymied by a small number of blocking states in both the UNFCCC and the Plastics Treaty negotiations. 

Multilateralism is an essential condition for human survival and to solve the world’s biggest crises – it needs to be protected from the interests that have learned to use its architecture as a delay mechanism. This must be done by holding up the science clearly enough that no government can look at it and pretend they don’t know what it says.

The science on plastics is not waiting to be discovered. The damage is visible: microplastics have been found in our blood, breast milk, and even in the food our babies eat. The evidence linking plastic exposure to endocrine disruption, fertility impacts, and cancer risk is growing. What is missing is the political will to let the evidence speak louder than those profiting from inaction.

The first conference on the Transition away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta revealed that countries are no longer willing to wait. Fifty-seven countries — representing a third of the world’s economy — broke free from the consensus chokehold of the UNFCCC and held a conversation not only brave enough to say “fossil fuels” but centred entirely around them. 

The Plastics Treaty still has a chance, and in March 2027, countries will come together again to attempt to finalise the agreement. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we must not miss. Governments must be bold and brave in their solutions. 

Are countries ready to connect the dots and act? 

Let’s end the age of plastic!

Ask world leaders to support Global Plastic Treaty so that we can finally turn off the tap and end the age of plastic.

Take action

Jacob Kean Hammerson is the Global Plastics Policy Lead at Greenpeace USA.

The Amazon arrives in Paris, Deep Sea Mining goes to The Hague, and speed limits come to Germany. Here are some of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

France – Indigenous leaders from the Brazilian and Guyanese Amazon are in Paris for the ‘True Cost of Gold’ advocacy tour, bringing Indigenous leaders from the Brazilian Amazon to France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. The tour follows the release of Greenpeace Brazil’s investigation “Gold Laundering in the Amazon: Anatomy of a Fraud” and aims to raise awareness about the impacts of illegal gold mining on Indigenous territories, forests and rivers, while calling for stronger traceability and accountability across global gold supply chains.
The delegation includes Alessandra Korap Munduruku, Juma Xipaia (pictured), Megaron Txucarramãe, Beptuk Metuktire and Tapinkili Anaïman.

The Netherlands – More than 230,000 people have signed a petition calling for a halt to deep-sea mining before it even begins. Greenpeace Netherlands presented the petition to the House of Representatives Committee for Climate and Green Growth in The Hague during the week of World Oceans Day. Greenpeace is calling on The Netherlands to advocate for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining in international waters. This means that deep-sea mining companies would not be allowed to begin operations as long as the consequences remain insufficiently understood.

Switzerland – Greenpeace activists project two images onto the façade of the Swiss Federal Palace. The first is reminiscent of the famous painting “The Scream” by the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch and is designed to resemble the symbol for radioactivity. The activists aim to draw attention to the fact that a return to nuclear energy poses a threat to Switzerland.

Germany – Greenpeace Germany activists protest with speed limit signs with along the Autobahn at the border entry to Germany. Environmental activists are calling for a general speed limit on the autobahn to limit fuel consumption in response to the climate crisis.

Spain – To mark World Environment Day, on 5 June, Greenpeace Spain activists unfurled a giant cartoon in Barcelona’s Park Güell. In this image, a climber holds a sign reading ‘happy world environment day’.

Indonesia – The Greenpeace-initiated ‘Festival Laut’ (Ocean Festival) 2026 brought together thousands of people at Taman Inspirasi Muntig Siokan, Bali, to spotlight the crises facing Indonesia’s oceans, from the exploitation of fishers and plastic pollution to the impact of the climate crisis on coastal communities.

Mexico – In a historic initiative, more than 100 civil society organizations and networks from Mexico and the United States joined forces to call on President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo to address the serious social and environmental issues affecting the country.
Two days before the 2026 World Cup opening ceremony, Greenpeace Mexico activists unfurled a massive 21-meter-long banner 60 meters high on the Estela de Luz. The groups denounced that issues of migration, disappearances, violence, dispossession, forced displacement, and environmental justice have been ignored, and that the commercial interests of the USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) take precedence over the people. The message sent to the Mexican government regarding these issues was clear: “The world is watching.”

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, visit our Media Library.

This story was originally posted by Greenpeace MENA for World Environment Day.

I write this as a Lebanese woman who has spent years working with communities across the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA), where an environmental crisis is never only environmental. In a region already burdened by economic collapse, conflict, and instability, climate change is not simply another challenge waiting its turn. It is the multiplier of every problem we already have. 

That is why the climate conversation in MENA does not always sound like the one held in global summits. It is not only about temperature curves, emissions targets, or distant deadlines. It manifests in four very human questions, asked across the region:

How do we afford food?
How do we secure water?
How do we keep the lights on?
How do we protect our children from extreme heat?

These are not separate from climate change. These are climate questions. And they are questions of dignity, justice, and survival.

How climate change impacts food security and water scarcity in MENA

Take food. Our region depends heavily on imports to secure its food needs. This means that droughts, failed harvests, disrupted trade routes, and rising energy costs can quickly become more expensive meals and harder choices for families. What begins as a climate or economic shock elsewhere can arrive very quickly at our kitchen tables.

Water tells an even clearer story. The Middle East and North Africa is already the most water-scarce region in the world, and climate change is making this reality harsher for communities, farmers, and ecosystems. But our story is not only one of scarcity. It is also one of resilience. For generations, people across our region learned how to live with limited water, protect resources, and use every drop wisely.

As we look ahead, resilience will not come only from new technology. It will also come from valuing the knowledge, practices, and respect for nature that helped our communities survive for centuries.

Energy insecurity and the need for a just transition

Then comes the question: How do we keep the lights on? 

The Middle East and North Africa region is home to immense energy resources. Yet for millions of people, reliable and affordable electricity is still not guaranteed. From households relying on generators to families struggling with rising bills, energy insecurity remains a daily reality.

Energy security is not measured only by how much energy we produce. It is measured by whether people can power their homes, run their businesses, keep food fresh, study after sunset, and live with dignity.

This is why a just transition matters. Not only because it reduces emissions, but because it can deliver cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy, while creating jobs and strengthening communities.

Extreme heat in MENA

And then there is heat. The MENA region is warming at nearly twice the global average, with temperatures surpassing 50°C in some areas. But heat is not just a number on a thermometer. It is the construction worker spending long hours outdoors in dangerous conditions. It is an elderly person struggling through another night without cooling. It is a child trying to learn in a classroom that has become too hot to concentrate.

When we talk about climate action, this is what we are really talking about: protecting people, their health, their livelihoods, and their ability to build a future where they live.

This is also where climate justice becomes real. The people asking how to afford food, secure water, keep the lights on, and protect their children from extreme heat are often the people with the fewest resources to cope. They are carrying the heaviest impacts, while having the least influence over the decisions that shape their future.

Climate justice means recognising and addressing this imbalance. It means ensuring that communities are not left to face the crisis alone. It means giving people a meaningful voice in shaping the policies, investments, and solutions that will define the future of our region.

Renewable energy and a just transition

A just transition cannot be designed for people. It must be built with them.

For MENA, this means asking harder questions about what kind of transition we are building. Renewable energy is essential, but it must serve people first. Solar and wind should not become another model where resources are extracted, benefits are concentrated elsewhere, and communities continue to bear the costs and remain vulnerable.

A real just transition must answer people’s daily needs. It means expanding decentralised renewable energy, and community solutions that keep the lights on where people live. It means investing in water resilience, protecting ecosystems, and supporting farmers to grow food in ways adapted to a hotter and drier future. It means cooling our cities through trees, shaded streets, better planning, and buildings designed for people, not only for consumption.

Solutions are here. Time for action.

The MENA region is too often described only as vulnerable. The challenges are real, but that story is incomplete. Across our region, communities are already building answers. Young people are demanding accountability. Farmers are reviving resilient practices. Civil society is organising around justice and hope. Cities and communities are showing that another future is possible.

The question is not whether solutions exist. The question is whether decision makers have the political leadership and courage to scale them with the urgency this moment demands.

The planet has been sending  clear warning signals for years. In MENA, these are already emergency sirens.

The response we send back must be equally clear: climate action must protect people’s dignity, strengthen resilience, and deliver justice in daily life. It must help families afford food, secure water, access clean and reliable energy, and protect their children from a hotter future.

We do not have to imagine that future from far away. We have to choose it, build it, and make sure it serves the people who have the most to lose and the most to teach.

That is the response worth sending back.

Have you experienced the impacts of climate change? Share Your Story with Greenpeace MENA