The world has poured a record US$ 2.7 trillion into military spending in 2024, with global spending rising every year for the past decade.

From Ukraine to Sudan, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Venezuela, people are living through war, bombardment, occupation, militarisation or political violence, while the damage reaches far beyond the frontlines. Homes, hospitals, power grids, water systems, farmland and coastlines are all drawn into the same cycle of destruction, showing that conflict is not only a human tragedy but also an environmental one, with consequences for public health, ecosystems and climate that can last for decades.

Like all wars, the current war in the Middle East will leave a toxic legacy

War does not only kill people and destroy homes. It also damages the systems that make life possible, including water networks, sewage plants, farmland, ports, fuel depots and electricity infrastructure, often leaving polluted air, contaminated soil and unsafe water long after the fighting slows. Across recent conflicts, research points to the same pattern: fires, toxic debris, damaged sanitation, collapsing public health systems and ecosystems pushed beyond recovery.

This environmental harm is not incidental. It is one of the ways war reshapes daily life.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by TRT World (@trtworld)

In Iran, within days of the first US-Israel strikes, energy itself became a direct battleground as attacks and counter attacks targeted fossil fuel infrastructure. The Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint with dozens of tankers carrying billions of litres of oil trapped in the Persian Gulf. Greenpeace Germany warned that a single oil spill in the Gulf could damage this fragile marine habitat beyond repair with devastating consequences for people, animals, and plants in the region, adding to the terrible human toll this illegal war has already taken on local communities.

In Gaza, Greenpeace MENA analysis has highlighted severe damage to water, sanitation, cropland and fisheries, alongside estimates that the first 120 days of the war generated more than half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That combination of bombardment, infrastructure collapse and pollution makes a place harder to inhabit, less healthy and less resilient to climate breakdown.

Sudan offers another stark example: research from the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) hows how war is driving deforestation, agricultural decline, industrial pollution, and the collapse of health and sanitation systems, undermining people’s access to food, water and energy.

War also carries a climate cost beyond the battlefield. Researchers cited by the CEOBS estimate that militaries account for around 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while conflict adds more through fires, fuel use, reconstruction and the loss of resilient public infrastructure. The environmental cost of war is therefore both immediate and cumulative, destroying ecosystems today and weakening societies’ ability to cope with heat, drought, floods and crop loss tomorrow.

History shows the damage lasts for decades

This is not new. During the Vietnam war, US forces sprayed almost 80 million litres of herbicides, including Agent Orange, affecting roughly 2.9 million hectares of land and leaving dioxin in soils, water and food chains for decades. In Iraq, UNEP and later field investigations warned of long-term environmental and health risks linked to depleted uranium contamination and other toxic remnants of war. These older conflicts matter because they show that the environmental damage of war does not end with a ceasefire.

The lesson running from Vietnam and Iraq to Gaza and Ukraine is simple. War contaminates the conditions for life itself. It degrades land, water, air and health in ways that can shape people’s lives for generations, especially where the fighting meshes with chemicals, oil, radiation risks and damaged public infrastructure.

Ukraine maps the environmental cost of war

Ukraine has made this damage unusually visible. Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe, together with the Ukrainian organisation Ecoaction, launched an environmental damage map built from almost 900 collected cases, with 30 of the most serious verified by satellite imagery to show how Russia’s illegal invasion has damaged land, habitats, water and air. Documenting this destruction is essential not only for accountability, but also for planning reconstruction and nature restoration in parallel.

The map matters because it shows the breadth of environmental damage that modern war causes. Missile strikes trigger wildfires, industrial sites leak toxins, shelling pollutes soil and water, and mined or occupied land becomes dangerous to farm, restore or even enter. This points to a larger argument about how war-affected countries can build back better in ways that restore nature and reduce dependence on the same vulnerable energy systems that war keeps targeting

Ukraine also shows how war magnifies and weaponises the environmental risk of  nuclear infrastructure. Greenpeace Ukraine and Greenpeace Central & Eastern Europe have repeatedly warned that the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (Europe’s largest nuclear power plant) has created an ongoing nuclear safety and security crisis. There is no credible nuclear safety, security or legal basis for restarting reactors at Zaporizhzhia while the site remains under Russian military and Rosatom control, and it has warned that any restart would sharply increase the risk of a nuclear disaster.

That warning reaches beyond Ukraine. Nuclear plants are designed for stable operating conditions, not occupation, militarisation and repeated threats to cooling, staffing and external power supply. The example of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia shows how war can turn critical infrastructure into a potential regional environmental catastrophe, with consequences that would not stop at any front line.

The environmental damage caused by war is not only a consequence of conflict.  It is also shaped by the fossil-based energy systems that power modern economies.

Oil and gas fuel war and intensify its environmental impact

Oil and gas are not just caught up in war. They often sit near its centre. Oil and gas revenues bankroll war machines, while control of pipelines, ports, tankers and shipping chokepoints helps drive geopolitical confrontation in the first place. When the global economy depends on centralised, combustible resources, attacks on depots, refineries, tankers or shipping routes do more than disrupt trade. They threaten marine ecosystems, public health and economic stability at the same time.

This dynamic helps explain why conflicts around fossil fuel infrastructure so often become ecological emergencies. During the 1991 Gulf war, burning Kuwaiti oil wells blackened skies and polluted land and water on a massive scale. More recently, Greenpeace Germany warned that the US-Israel war on Iran, and the retaliatory strikes that followed across the Gulf, left more than 85 large oil tankers trapped in the Persian Gulf and sharply increased the risk of an oil spill. Local communities would pay that long-term price first, with any spill threatening livelihoods as well as fragile marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass meadows, for decades. The environmental threat is built into an energy system that concentrates risk in a handful of highly flammable, highly polluting sites.

Fossil fuels do not only worsen the damage once fighting begins. They can also shape the motives, incentives and power struggles that make conflict more likely in the first place. President Donald Trump’s illegal military action against Venezuela was tied to control of its oil industry, after he said the US would be “very strongly involved” in Venezuela’s oil sector. Venezuela holds the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world and warned that the crisis must not be exploited for short-term oil profiteering or extractive gain by foreign governments or corporations.

A world organised around oil and gas makes communities and ecosystems expendable in the pursuit of strategic control and profit. That is why the environmental consequences of war cannot be separated from the political economy of fossil fuel extraction itself.

Yemen’s FSO Safer became one of the clearest examples of that intersection between fossil fuels, humanitarian crisis and conflict. The abandoned tanker, carrying roughly 1.1 million barrels of oil, threatened a major Red Sea spill for years while war blocked proper maintenance and response. That immediate catastrophe has now been averted because a UN-led operation removed the oil and transferred it to safer long-term storage. But the Safer crisis showed how a single neglected piece of fossil fuel infrastructure in a war zone can endanger fisheries, food deliveries, coastal livelihoods and marine biodiversity across an entire region.

Renewables are a security imperative

There is no sunlight stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, no wind held hostage by a tanker route. Distributed renewables are harder to bomb or blockade than giant oil fields, pipelines and centralised thermal plants because they remove single points of failure from the energy system. A decentralised network of rooftop solar, batteries, local grids and efficiency measures can help keep hospitals, schools and homes functioning even when national infrastructure is attacked or fuel imports are disrupted.

That is why the energy transition should also be understood as a security and resilience strategy. Countries generating power from their own sun and wind are less vulnerable to shipping disruptions, fuel price shocks and political blackmail tied to oil and gas imports. Local renewables cannot stop a war, but they can reduce the leverage of fossil fuel cartels, keep essential services running and lower the environmental damage that comes from defending centralised, combustible infrastructure.

War and conflict do not only kill people. They also poison water, damage soil, foul the air and destroy the systems that make everyday life possible. Naming that devastation matters, because peace is not only the absence of bombs but the possibility of living on safe, healthy and habitable land, something now recognised in the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. 

Moving away from fossil fuels can help make that future more possible by reducing both environmental harm and the dangerous dependencies that so often intensify conflict.

Greenpeace International strongly condemns the ongoing and escalating invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces, and calls for an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities by all parties to prevent further loss of life and avert an irreversible environmental and humanitarian catastrophe.

Since the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon came into effect in November 2024, reports indicate that Israel has violated its terms over 15,000 times.[1] This was conducted through both air and land attacks, undermining the diplomatic framework intended to protect civilians. 

On top of the death toll caused by the US-Israel attack on Iran and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the humanitarian toll of this recent escalation in Lebanon is horrific. Official reports cite around one million people displaced, with more than 900 killed, including over 100 children, and more than 2,200 injured to date.[2][3] The large-scale forced displacement of over one million people, combined with illegal mass evacuation orders that fail to ensure adequate protection for civilians, violates international humanitarian law.[4]

Greenpeace Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has expressed deep concern about the threats from Israeli officials of Gaza-level destruction in Lebanon.[5] Similar patterns are already emerging, including strikes on medical facilities and personnel, the targeting of academic and civilian infrastructure, threats to UNESCO world heritage sites and widespread environmental destruction.[6] The documented use of white phosphorus over civilian areas in southern Lebanon violates international bans on the indiscriminate use of incendiary weapons in populated zones.[7] 

Greenpeace MENA warns that this massive scale of forced displacement and explicit threat of widespread destruction goes beyond military strategy and may amount to war crimes, endangering the fundamental fabric of Lebanese society.[8] 

As scorched earth tactics and prohibited weapons devastate residential heartlands, the international community must break its silence to demand the protection of all civilian lives, an immediate ceasefire, and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the entirety of Lebanese territory.

ENDS

Notes:

[1] MSF update: Southern Lebanon – where is the ceasefire?

[2] IOM: Nearly One Million Displaced in Lebanon 

[3] Republic of Lebanon Ministry of Heath, daily report 17/03/2026: Death toll rises to 912

[4] OHCHR: Amid protection crisis in Lebanon, UN experts warn bombing civilians to force displacement is unlawful

[5] Escalation of hostilities in Lebanon, as of 16 March 2026 – ReliefWeb

[6] Destruction like Gaza or civil war? Netanyahu’s warning adds to questions over Israel’s goals in Lebanon – NBC

[7] Human Rights Watch: Israel unlawfully using white phosphorus over residential areas in southern Lebanon
[8] Situation in Lebanon | OHCHR 

Contact:

Hiam Mardini, Communications and Media Manager, Greenpeace MENA, +961 71 553 232,  hmardini@greenpeace.org 

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

In the Middle East in general, and especially in Lebanon, we do not experience war only through breaking news headlines or the sounds of shelling, but we also experience it in the details of daily life: in the anxiety about power outages, the fear of fuel shortages, the high cost of transportation, and even in the price of bread.

How the war in the Middle East impacts daily life

War does not remain confined to the front lines; rather, it quickly seeps into homes, kitchens, transportation, generator bills, and the ability of families to secure their basic needs and feel safe and stable.

With each new escalation, it’s not just politics that is affected; the repercussions extend to the daily lives of millions, especially when those lives depend on fragile and centralised energy systems linked to fossil fuels and supply chains that can be disrupted at any moment. This is clearly what we are witnessing today amidst the war raging in our region. 

When shipping lanes are disrupted, oil and gas prices rise, or fears of supply shortages increase, it is no longer a purely economic matter, but quickly becomes a direct burden on people: transportation becomes more difficult, running businesses more expensive, and securing electricity more challenging and precarious, while families find themselves once again facing a new crisis.

Fossil fuels are unsafe and unstable

While some face the full force of airstrikes and attacks, others experience economic contraction and a growing fear of worse to come. But one reality unites us all: the risks facing a global economy overly reliant on fossil fuels, known for its extreme volatility and its close ties to conflict, which makes our societies more vulnerable with each crisis.

The repercussions are not limited to the countries directly affected by the conflict, but extend to the economies of the region, such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, where the cost of fuel, transportation, electricity, and basic commodities has risen significantly. 

The war quickly impacted markets, with oil prices exceeding US$100 per barrel in the early days of the escalation, while the Egyptian pound fell to around 53 pounds to the dollar, and domestic fuel prices increased, further driving up the costs of transportation, electricity, and food. In Tunisia, the rising average exchange rate of the dollar, coupled with soaring global oil prices, threatens to exacerbate pressure on the 2026 budget and the cost of living in an economy heavily reliant on energy imports. In Morocco, which also imports most of its oil needs, domestic prices are under increasing pressure, impacting vital sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing.

Energy is a hostage in the war in the Middle East and people are paying the price

Within days of US-Israel strikes on Iran, energy itself became a direct battleground. As the conflict rapidly escalated across the Middle East, fossil fuel infrastructure quickly became a direct target. The Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint threatening global supplies. Israel cut off gas deliveries to Egypt and Jordan. And gas prices soared by nearly 50% after production was disrupted at a major facility in Qatar. This clearly demonstrates how fossil fuels can be transformed into a geopolitical tool that directly impacts people’s lives.

Renewable energy in the Middle East and North Africa region is no longer merely a postponed environmental or climate issue. For us today, it is a matter of daily resilience, sustainability, and the dignity of our societies. It is a matter of sovereignty, not only in its abstract political sense, but also in the sense of our societies’ ability to secure a greater portion of their basic needs locally and reduce their dependence on market fluctuations, wars, and geopolitical tensions.

A just transition to renewable energy is key

Energy sovereignty is not simply a matter of replacing one energy source with another; it requires a fundamental rethinking of the entire energy system structure. The more decentralised energy production becomes, the closer it is to people, and the more accessible it is to homes, schools, hospitals, farms, and small businesses, the more resilient our communities will be during times of crisis. Decentralised systems, such as rooftop solar power or small community projects, do not eliminate risks entirely, but they reduce vulnerability and empower people to take greater control of their lives and build resilience.

We have witnessed this clearly in Lebanon. With the ongoing collapse of the electricity sector in recent years, thousands of families and businesses have turned to solar energy, not as a luxury or a green option, but as a means of survival. Many have not turned to these solutions to address the climate crisis, but to obtain electricity that enables them to live with dignity, work, and study.

This reality applies to the entire region. The Middle East and North Africa are among the richest in solar energy, yet our societies remain vulnerable to an energy system that exacerbates their fragility with every war or market disruption. Paradoxically, we have the resources to build a more independent and secure energy future, yet we remain trapped in the same old fossil fuel model. However, it is encouraging that some countries in the region are beginning to chart a transformation. Morocco aims to generate more than half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, while the UAE seeks to triple its renewable energy contribution by the same year.

What we need is system change

But what we need today is not just more large-scale renewable energy projects, important as they are, but also a deeper shift toward a more equitable and people-centered energy model. We need policies that enable households, communities, institutions, and farmers to access affordable, decentralised renewable energy within clear regulatory frameworks and with equitable financing, viewing energy as part of social and economic protection, not just a technical sector.

In times of war, all illusions crumble: energy security is not a matter of technology or figures in market reports, but a matter of daily life, social stability, and human dignity. When electricity, transportation, food preservation, and the operation of schools and hospitals become hostage to conflicts beyond the control of the people, the problem lies at the very heart of the entire system, not just in the supply chain.

Therefore, a just transition to decentralised renewable energy is no longer a luxury, but a fundamental necessity for strengthening communities’ resilience to crises. When these communities possess more stable and sovereign energy systems, they are better equipped to protect their livelihoods and withstand shocks to the economy and daily life.

In our region, energy sovereignty is measured not only by what we produce, but also by our ability to ensure that people’s lives are not held hostage by every new war or crisis.

Ghiwa Nakat is the Executive Director of Greenpeace Middle East and North Africa

This story was originally posted in Arabic exclusively on CNN Economics.

On 16 March 2026, Greenpeace USA held a mobile protest at the opening day of Nvidia’s flagship GTC conference. The message, delivered in the heart of Silicon Valley to expose the semiconductor giant for powering the “AI Revolution” with fossil fuels, demanded that the world’s most valuable company decarbonise its global supply chain through renewable energy.

Shortly before Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s keynote address, a triple-billboard truck began circulating around the SAP Center in San Jose, sending a direct message to the CEO: “Hey Jensen, your GPUs powering the AI boom are overheating. So is the planet.” The installation presented two clear paths for the tech giant: “Powering the Apocalypse” through fossil-fuel reliance, or “Powering the Future” through a transition to wind and solar.

Katrin Wu, Supply Chain Project Lead, Greenpeace East Asia, said: “While Nvidia promises to ‘surprise the world’ with its new AI chips at GTC, the true surprise Jensen Huang left unsaid is the staggering scale of Nvidia’s supply chain emissions. Its supply chain emissions now rival the carbon footprints of some nations, while the company has yet to take meaningful action to address them. A world-class new-generation chip should be produced using wind and solar, not fossil fuels. Nvidia must take action to mitigate the environmental dilemma its business has created.”

This activity follows the release of Greenpeace East Asia’s analysis, “Nvidia’s Green Illusion,” which concludes that the company’s supply chain emissions more than doubled in just three years. The environmental burden is concentrated in manufacturing hubs such as South Korea and Taiwan, where power grids remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels.[1] Despite reporting record-breaking revenue in its earnings report last month, Nvidia received an “F” grade in Greenpeace East Asia’s 2025 ranking of 10 global AI giants for lagging behind its peers in decarbonisation and renewable energy adoption.[2]

The San Jose protest is part of a global wave of resistance by Greenpeace organisations around the world against billionaires who prioritise uncontrolled business expansion over ecological limits and people’s well-being.

Susannah Compton, Civic Resistance and Freedoms Campaigner, Greenpeace International, said:“We can all share a dream for a peaceful, abundant future empowered by technological advancements, but profit-hungry Big Tech companies cannot be blindly trusted to get us there. Nvidia’s chips power the AI boom, but the company’s innovation obsession clearly doesn’t extend to a livable planet because its supply chain is still built on fossil fuels. While Big Tech billionaires like Jensen Huang cash in, people and the planet pay the cost of surging emissions in rising bills and extreme weather. Technology must make our collective future better, not worse.”

Greenpeace urges Nvidia to slash its global supply chain emissions by transitioning to renewable energy, invest directly in new wind and solar projects globally, especially in manufacturing regions, and publish transparent annual supplier electricity and emissions data.

ENDS

Notes:

[1] Nvidia’s Green Illusion, Greenpeace East Asia, March 2026[2] Supply Change: Tracking AI Giants’ Decarbonization Progress, Greenpeace East Asia, October 2025

Photos and videos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library.

Contacts:

Yujie Xue, International Communications Officer, Greenpeace East Asia, +852 5127 3416, yujie.xue@greenpeace.org

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

Amsterdam, Netherlands – Public transportation, improved recycling programmes, and advanced battery technologies are shown as crucial solutions to limit mineral demand for a green transition according to a new report.

‘Beyond Extraction: Pathways for a 1.5°C-aligned Energy Transition with Less Minerals’, was commissioned by Greenpeace International, and authored by academics at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in Australia. Using different 1.5°C-compatible energy scenarios to explore pathways toward mineral sufficiency and efficiency, the report shows how Earth’s minerals can be administered for a clean renewable energy transformation that protects vital Earth support systems from terrestrial or deep sea mining of so-called ‘critical minerals’.

“Mining often brings environmental destruction and social harm. It is reportedly linked to child labour, workers’ rights violations, land grabs from Indigenous Peoples, ecosystem damage, and threats to communities. Around the world, the minerals ‘rush’ repeats extractivist and colonial patterns, disregards the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and threatens to undermine the very possibility of a just and green energy transition,” says Elsa Lee, Co-Head of Biodiversity at Greenpeace International.

“We all want a just world where energy is clean, affordable and available to everyone, rights are respected, peoples’ land access and livelihoods are protected, and our planet has a stable climate and rich biodiversity. With this report we underline that it is incumbent upon our governments who regulate the extractive industry to power an ambitious energy transition without mining critical ecosystems on land or at sea,” added Lee.

A key recommendation of the report is that decision makers must prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition purposes. In an era of eroding international cooperation and intensifying conflict, this underscores the importance of coordinated action to protect people and nature, and achieve climate objectives. 

Greenpeace International deep sea mining campaigner Ruth Ramos said: “Lines have been crossed on the land that need never be crossed in the deep ocean. Now we know: not only does deep sea mining run against science, ethics, people and the planet, it’s not even needed for a renewable transition. What is needed is for the nations of the world to unite against rogue actors like The Metals Company and Donald Trump and their affronts to international law and cooperation, and instead keep moving towards a moratorium on deep sea mining. Imagine if humans could have protected the world from the harms of the fossil fuel industry before it even started – that is the opportunity when it comes to deep sea mining: it is a historic privilege, and one we must now embrace wholeheartedly.”

As part of the report, potential mineral reserves areas were compared with areas that – due to their exceptional environmental, ecological, and social importance – must be off-limits to mining. The analysis finds that there is no need to mine these off-limits areas—including, amongst others, the global ocean and protected areas on land —for an ambitious energy transition.

Report author Professor Sven Teske said: “This research highlights how sound policies and innovative technologies can limit mineral demand in a 1.5°C-aligned energy transition. Realising this potential, however, requires responsible political leadership and decisive action today.”

ENDS

Notes:

Report: Beyond Extraction: Pathways for a 1.5°C-aligned Energy Transition with Less Minerals

Research briefing for Beyond Extraction report

Photos available in the Greenpeace Media Library

Contacts:

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

Lithium, nickel, copper, and cobalt are often framed by States and industries as “critical minerals” – a reflection of political priorities rather than actual societal needs. As the demand for these minerals is predicted to grow for energy transition technologies as well as other sectors, such as big tech and the military sector, its supply chains have become a geopolitical battleground. This has governments scrambling to control supply chains, while companies opportunistically pursue extraction, which can infringe on the ancestral lands of Indigenous Peoples, and risk the destruction of vital ecosystems. 

We must achieve an ambitious, Paris Agreement-aligned energy transition that safeguards critical ecosystems and centers the rights of Indigenous Peoples and those of local communities. But it requires the right political choices and moral leadership.

“Beyond Extraction: Pathways for a 1.5°C-aligned Energy Transition with Less Minerals”, is a collaboration between Greenpeace International and the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney.

The study focuses on nine key energy transition minerals: cobalt, copper, dysprosium, graphite, lithium, manganese, neodymium, nickel, and vanadium. 

Scenario analysis was used in this study to explore how different technological and policy pathways can shape future mineral demand from 2024-2050. 

The scenarios are: 

1) One Earth Climate Model Net Zero (OECM), aligned with the Paris climate goals and set as a base case for the study;

2) Progressive (PRO), and 

3) Progressive Accelerated Sodium-ion Battery (PRO-Na-ion). 

This global research – the first of its kind – shows that we can power an ambitious energy transition without sacrificing crucial ecosystems – whether on land or at sea. More public transportation, ambitious recycling programmes, and battery technology choices all contribute to reducing the mineral demand for energy transition. 

In an era of fraying international cooperation and intensifying conflict, this research underscores the importance of coordinated action to protect people and nature from the minerals “rush”, and achieve climate objectives. Responsible political leadership must prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition purposes and ensure that rights are respected, and peoples’ land access and livelihoods are protected.

Download the report and other materials: 

Download the research briefing. 

Download the report “Beyond Extraction: Pathways for a 1.5°C-aligned Energy Transition with less Minerals”. 

Download supplementary documents:
1) development of a restricted areas map and

2) minerals mapping approach and integration (reserve Proxy Area analysis)

On 8 March 2026, many neighbourhoods in Jakarta – one of the fastest-sinking cities in the world – were submerged by floods. Hundreds of residents displaced as relentless rainfall hit the metropolitan area and its satellite cities, including Bekasi, the one where I live now.

These floods happening exactly on International Women’s Day instantly reminded me of how I learned that the climate crisis is tougher on women. I know people don’t tend to think about gender when they think about extreme weather events, but the evidence shows that it’s connected.

And as a woman who experienced countless floods in Jakarta, I can testify: the climate crisis is not just. It’s not gender-neutral.

I didn’t figure it out by accident. I used to live quite comfortably as a little kid, I must admit. Then a few years later, life took an unexpected turn from what it used to be. Certain situations forced our family to let go of our childhood home and move to a densely-populated neighbourhood in one of the city’s alleys where reliable electricity was sometimes a luxury. We found out too late that it was also a flood-prone area until one morning, it came.

We didn’t get the opportunity to evaluate that sudden risk. My Dad and my little brother immediately laid some old clothes near our front door as barriers, while my Mom and I put our family’s important papers and documents in the cheap waterproof bags. We tried our best to avoid the water from entering without sandbags, but we failed. Most of the house was submerged. No clean water. No electricity. No access to buy food.

We slowly became familiar with such conditions as floods kept coming again and again occasionally during rainy seasons. As a teenage girl, I was often frustrated because I wasn’t able to buy sanitation supplies when I needed them the most, including menstrual pads. It never crossed my mind that dealing with numerous floods without proper resources while facing significant infrastructural and social challenges in Jakarta – with myriad threats like tidal floods, rising sea levels, water scarcity, and poor air quality – meant my health and hygiene were being compromised.

I talked to my female neighbours in that area during those years. Some of them were middle school students like me, some were single mothers whose children were sick from time to time due to constant flooding and polluted air, some were informal middle-aged workers with low-paid wages to support the family, and one of them even told me she had to suffer from domestic violence in the past as a result of increasing stress levels in the similar neighbourhood. All of us collectively agreed the same thing: when people romanticised the rain, we wholeheartedly cursed it.

This memory I once denied has become a part of my own story. I soon realised there are many other women exposed to environmental risks whose struggles are even made harder due to cultural norms, gendered-responsibilities, poverty, and systematically unjust oppression.

The burden of the climate crisis is not evenly distributed

The climate crisis disproportionately affects women who are already dealing with stigma and discrimination they are up against in their daily life, especially when they are also a part of other marginalised groups: low-income, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color), disabled, or LGBTQ+, exposing the intersectionality of climate impacts, gender inequality and social injustice.

In some regions, women already lack access to healthcare, basic education, natural resources, or employment, making them less prepared than men when the climate disasters hit. The Indigenous Women communities in Brazilian Amazon have to spend more time in their fields to secure minimal harvests or walk longer distances to collect water when rivers run dry while they have to take care of family members who are sick due to the rising temperatures. Their burdens have physically and mentally multiplied.

Another fact that the relationship between women and the climate crisis has often been overlooked is that the effects of the crisis are intensifying the social and economic stresses that are contributing to violence against women and girls, just like what one of my former neighbours experienced above. Many women in Indonesia also have to face systematic violence from authorities as the exploitative management of natural resources which constantly causes climate disasters often uses methods that violate human rights.

Women are more at risk, but less in policy-making roles

Gender gaps in climate policy-making still persist across the world. Women make up less than 40% of environment ministers in wealthier societies, and the numbers are even considerably lower in locations where women are most vulnerable to environmental risk, particularly in low-income countries and environmentally-sensitive sectors.

As much as I support and encourage the acts of solidarity during women’s history month in which I was a part of as well, I think we need to remind ourselves that it’s important we should recognise and stand in solidarity with women who have enough resources and successfully thrive in male-dominated fields, but especially with women in minorities and those at the forefront of the climate crisis, such as single mothers in coastal communities without free access to healthcare and have low-paid jobs, or women human rights defenders experiencing intimidation and violence.

A better understanding on how gender equality intersects with social and climate justice plays a key role in order to call for real actions and implement solutions that work for our varied experiences. When gender equality is often treated as a symbolic celebration, it’s only a decoration. It’s time for actual representation and inclusion that ensures women’s voices are heard and their struggles are properly addressed.

Social justice and climate justice are about our planet and the lives of all people, so fighting for both is crucial to achieve a fairer, greener, more equitable, and more sustainable future for all. 

No more bombs, no nukes, no more bullies. Here are a few of our favorite images from Greenpeace work this week. Comment below which you like best!

Spain – Greenpeace Spain activists unfurled a giant banner with the message “NO TO WAR” in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol, one of the city’s most iconic locations, to send a clear message to world leaders: war is never the solution.

Switzerland – Greenpeace Switzerland activists draw a circle with a red thread 5 kilometres around the Gösgen nuclear power plant on Saturday. In doing so, they illustrate the drastic loss of living, residential and working space following a nuclear accident – knowing that a reactor disaster could affect an even larger area.

Indonesia – Sinta Gebze, a Malind Indigenous community member whose story is featured in the film Pig Feast (Pesta Babi), embraces one of the participants after sharing her response and watching the film in Jayapura, Papua.

Belgium – Thousands of protesters march in Brussels on International Women’s Day to demand gender equality, protesting issues like gender-based violence, wage gaps, and supporting reproductive rights.

France – Greenpeace France activists disrupted the arrival of official delegations at the World Nuclear Summit.

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.

Amsterdam, Netherlands – Unilever released its Annual Report and Accounts 2025 which reviewed the company’s progress on packaging sustainability and outlined plastic-specific targets on virgin plastic reduction and packaging types including flexibles or sachets. 

In response, Graham Forbes, Global Plastics Campaign Lead, Greenpeace USA said: “Unilever’s latest sustainability targets fail once again to match the scope of its plastic problem, or provide clarity for its shareholders and customers on how it will end its plastic sachet disaster. Swapping some sachets for paper alternatives is a false solution and does little to address the urgency and scale of the packaging waste and pollution crisis it helped create. Unilever is replacing one single-use material with another rather than tackling the root cause of plastic pollution.”

“Millions of plastic sachets continue to be produced every day, many ending up polluting communities and waterways across the Global South. Brands like Dove are among those contributing to this flood of single-use packaging, leaving communities to deal with the consequences of waste they did not create.”

“As one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies Unilever has both the responsibility and the ability to lead the shift away from single-use packaging towards reuse solutions. Greenpeace is calling on Unilever to create a clear roadmap to phase out all single-use sachets and scale up reuse systems. Real leadership will bring an end to the company’s dependence on plastic packaging and support a strong Global Plastics Treaty that cuts plastic production at the source.”

ENDS

Contacts:

Angelica Carballo Pago, Global Plastics Communication and Media Lead, Greenpeace USA, +63917 1124492, apago@greenpeace.org

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

Strait of Hormuz – Responding to news of escalating attacks by Iran on vessels stuck in the Persian Gulf extending to the Strait of Hormuz, Nina Noelle at Greenpeace Germany, which has been mapping oil tankers trapped in the area and potential impacts of an oil spill, said:

“Right now, there are dozens of tankers carrying billions of litres of oil trapped in the Persian Gulf as mines are being laid and missiles are hitting ships. This is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. A single oil spill in the Gulf could damage this fragile marine habitat beyond repair with devastating consequences for people, animals, and plants in the region, adding to the terrible human toll this illegal war has already taken on local communities.

“The US-Israel attack on Iran and subsequent strikes by Iran on neighbouring Gulf countries has shown once again that our dependence on fossil fuels is a constant threat to peace, security and prosperity. When oil and gas prices surge, fossil fuel giants rake in more profits while everyday people are hit by higher costs for heating, electricity, transport and food. 

“Greenpeace is calling on all parties to de-escalate tensions and pursue peaceful, diplomatic solutions and on governments everywhere to urgently shift away from fossil fuels towards distributed renewable energy systems where the risks of conflict are reduced rather than amplified.

“From Venezuela to Iran, we’ve seen how Trump’s stated desire to control resources – especially oil and gas – is playing out in violent foreign policy. In Trump’s illegal war with Iran, the only winners are the oil and gas companies.”

An investigation by Greenpeace Germany has analysed the blocked Strait of Hormuz using ship movement data and satellite imagery and simulated the potential consequences of oil spills in the Persian Gulf if tankers are damaged. At present, the oil tankers trapped in the Persian Gulf are carrying at least 21 billion litres of oil.

“Greenpeace simulations show how an oil slick could spread if the stranded tankers are damaged in an attack. The Strait of Hormuz and adjacent waters are home to pristine coral reefs, mangrove forests, and seagrass meadows. This is an ecological ticking time bomb and represents an enormous risk that further increases instability and human suffering in the region.” 

ENDS

Satellite images available for download via the Greenpeace Media Library. Link to interactive map 

Notes:

[1] Greenpeace Germany is tracking larger oil tankers above 80.000 DWT (deadweight tonnage) and 100 metres length. Interactive map and accompanying article: How oil tankers stuck in the Strait of Hormuz south of Iran threatens the Gulf ecosystem

[2] You can’t blow up the sun: 4 reasons renewables are a security imperative

[3] In Trump’s illegal war with Iran, the only winners are the oil and gas companies 

Contacts: 

Nina Noelle, crisis communications and international relations manager, Greenpeace Germany, +49 151 10622733, nina.noelle@greenpeace.org

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