Fossil-fuelled fighting, Trumpified towers, and pooping piggies, here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Namibia – Four activists from the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior paint ‘THEY PROFIT, WE PAY’ down the side of the hull of the gigantic PetroJarl Rosebank FPSO, off the coast of Namibia. The Rosebank project is a planned offshore oil and gas development west of the Shetland Islands in the North Atlantic.

Belgium – Activists project a golden facade and the words “TRUMP TOWER” onto the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, mimicking one of President Trump’s skyscrapers, with a Greenpeace message urging EU leaders meeting to stop capitulating to his demands. The Greenpeace Belgium activists were protesting the EU’s continued dependence on the US for oil and gas imports, the removal of protections for the environment, public health and privacy, and the lack of resistance to the US’s breaches of international law.

Namibia – Greenpeace activists protest a gigantic ship on its way to tap new oil as part of the Rosebank development. The Rosebank project is a planned offshore oil and gas development west of the Shetland Islands in the North Atlantic. It is the largest undeveloped oil field in the UK, containing roughly 300–500 million barrels of oil equivalent. PA major partner in the project is the Israeli fossil fuel company Delek.

Denmark – Three piggy activists, dressed in black suits and pig masks, sat on toilets on the roof of the Danish Agriculture & Food Council, the country’s largest agricultural lobby. Meanwhile, other activists dressed as lobbyists ‘redecorated’ the headquarters’ windows with large, red poison symbols, highlighting the health risks of drinking water contaminated with pesticides and high nitrate levels. The action is part of Greenpeace Nordic’s response to the Danish federal election which occurred this week and saw industrial pig farming and its impact on drinking water become one of the main issues of the election.

Germany – Nine activists are protesting for stronger climate action and greater energy independence ahead of the expected cabinet decision on the Climate Protection Act. On a 100-square-metre banner hung from a construction crane next to the Federal Chancellery in Berlin, the activists are demanding in German: “Freiheit statt fossile Politik”, –“Freedom instead of fossil fuel policies”.

USA – On the opening day of Nvidia’s GTC (Global Technology Centers) conference, Greenpeace USA drove a triple-billboard truck to deliver a direct message to CEO Jensen Huang: ‘Hey Jensen, your graphics processors that are fuelling the AI boom are overheating. So is the planet.’

Netherlands – With a massive projection on the Eye film museum in Amsterdam, Greenpeace Netherlands calls on the government to impose an extra tax on the war profits of oil and gas companies. According to Greenpeace, the proceeds should be used to compensate lower-income households for their energy bills and to accelerate the transition to solar and wind energy in order to end the dependency on fossil fuel industry.

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 week, a heavy smog hangs in the air of Johannesburg, South Africa, the city where I live, as I scroll through the World’s Billionaires List: The Richest in 2026 published by Forbes. 

The list seems unreal and out of touch with my version of reality. Hundreds of billions of dollars attached to people’s names. Numbers so large it feels like something out of a simulation rather than the real world. 

It made me think of my parents. How I’ve spent most of my life watching them work so hard to provide for our family as best they could and still not gain the financial security that would allow them to retire comfortably.

For many of my childhood years, I stayed with my grandmother during the week and only saw my parents on weekends. I was a baby, completely unaware of the world around me and the reality that my parents had to be away working so we could get by. 

Fast forward 29 years and my parents are still working. I don’t think they’ll ever really have the opportunity to stop, or even slow down as much as they deserve to.

Meanwhile, a tiny handful of people are hoarding insane wealth. While their lifestyles and investments are fuelling the climate crisis we are living through. Leaving people like my parents and I on the hamster wheel, trying to make ends meet as the planet around us heats, burns, and fills with smoke.

Billionaire wealth is taken, not made

One narrative we often hear about billionaires is that they worked incredibly hard for their wealth. Hard work may well be part of their story (well, at least some of them) but it takes more than just effort to become a billionaire. It often comes with access to resources, networks, opportunities that make that level of wealth possible in the first place. 

It depends on systems that allow extreme wealth to accumulate at the very top, through ownerships, investments, favourable tax structures and economic breaks that reward capital far more than labour. And once that wealth is secured, those same systems often make it harder for younger generations to access the opportunities that made it possible in the first place, effectively pulling the ladder up behind them. In addition, to not being taxed at a fair rate, in proportion to their wealth. 

Tax inequalities: the billionaires vs the people

There is no lack of money, only a failure to make the richest of the rich pay their fair share.

Let’s take Elon Musk, for example, he is reportedly richer than the “poorest” 693 billionaires on the planet combined, that’s insane. 

Yet according to research from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Musk’s company, Tesla, reported $5.7 billion in U.S. income in 2025 and paid zero federal income tax on those profits. 

Compare that to families like mine, where ordinary workers can pay up to 41% of their income in taxes.  

In South Africa, where inequality runs deep, many families work incredibly hard just to stay afloat while still paying their dues. People like my parents, who’ve paid taxes their entire working lives, contributing to communities and the protection of our planet. It sometimes feels like we can swim, but we’re still treading water. You’re not drowning, but you’re not really moving forward either.

All while the very wealthiest continue to profit and make money even in their sleep while benefiting from systems that reduce how much they are required to contribute back to the societies they benefit from. 

What if we used that money to fund the future we’re trying to build?.

Tax the super-rich to protect people and the planet

Billionaires are not only accumulating immense wealth, they are also major contributors to the climate crisis. Research by Oxfam International found that a person in the richest 0.1% produces more carbon pollution in a single day than someone in the bottom 50% produces in an entire year. As they grow richer, the climate crisis gets worse with 2025 being the third hottest year on record.

It is clear that those who profit – and pollute – the most should be taxed their fair share to clean up their mess and to contribute to the collective good. It is morally indefensible that the collective responsibility of tax contribution to fix pressing climate and social problems should fall on hardworking families like yours and mine.

By taxing extreme wealth, it could unlock money to help fund real, practical solutions in the places where people actually live. In my city, that would mean better air quality, greener options for public transport, a better working waste disposal and even investing in resources and education on building systems that protect our planet. Working hospitals, basic service delivery, the list goes on. 

For me, it would mean living in a society where public systems actually support us instead of making life harder. 

By taxing extreme wealth, we could have access to a plethora of resources that would improve people’s lives and help address some of the biggest challenges we face, including climate change impacts.

It really can be that simple.  

Our parents might not get to fully benefit from these changes in their lifetimes but hopefully we and our children will and maybe the best way to honour everything our parents worked for is to fight for changes that would make the system fairer and greener for all.  Together, let’s urge governments to tax the super rich and fund a green and fair future. 

Tax the super-rich

Together, let’s urge governments to tax the super-rich and fund a green and fair future.

Add your name

Naeemah Dudan is a Digital Specialist for Greenpeace Africa, based in South Africa. 

Unilever released its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts that outlines its progress and direction on all things sustainability. With Greenpeace’s campaign on Dove, we’ve been keeping a close eye on what Unilever is and isn’t saying about its plastic packaging problem. As a €50 BILLION company with brands sold in 190 countries, it has massive global reach and influence with connections to millions of other businesses around the world. But is Unilever driving industry transformation or putting profit over people and planet? We’ve unpacked their report in these key takeaways.  

More virgin plastic reduction: Yes, please. 

Unilever has reduced its reliance on virgin plastic. But doing so mainly by lightweighting innovations (reducing packaging weight but not number of units), increasing recycled content in its plastic packaging, and swapping one type of single-use packaging for another isn’t getting at the heart of the problem. Overall plastic reduction must be the goal, not only virgin plastic. We need to see plastic packaging replaced with non-toxic, zero waste, reuse-refill based alternatives. It’s time to expedite a transition away from a plastic-dependent business model. 

Swapping throwaway plastic sachets for paper: Just more trash.

Unilever added a much anticipated additional goal on plastic sachet reduction this year, but presented it as an increased “focus on transitioning to paper-based flexible packaging.” The company aims to introduce 7.4 -13.7 kilotons of paper sachets by 2028. (note: Unilever produces hundreds of kilotons of plastic each year) But how many of the billions of plastic sachets will be swapped for paper, and where exactly will this happen? Single-use paper packaging raises many similar waste and environmental destruction red flags as plastic sachets. This isn’t a zero-waste alternative, or potentially even a zero pollution alternative. The transition roadmap needs to lead to reuse systems, not new one-time-use systems. 

Recycled plastic content: False solution.

The company achieved its goal of 25% recycled content in its plastic by 2025, touting up to 100% in some products. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a circular economy for plastics, and even 100% recycled plastic packaging isn’t as green as it sounds. And plastic packaging with recycled content still pollutes the same way if it ends up in the environment, it still could shed microplastics or chemicals into its contents, and it still could end up in landfill if mismanaged. Recycled plastic usually still requires fossil fuel, petrochemical and additive inputs. The market for post consumer plastic continues to falter, despite industry and governments continuing to prop up the plastic recycling myth. It’s time to follow the zero waste hierarchy and prioritize reduction and reuse over recycling. 

Support for reuse initiatives: Show us the money. 

The report mentions the reuse initiatives it’s engaged in sparsely throughout, not instilling confidence that this is an area of priority. A lot of cash is being poured into paper alternatives and recycling initiatives, but what piece of the pie does reuse get? Unilever is participating in multi-brand pilot projects that are city-wide and could be a game changer in reuse scaling, but we need to see more investment from the company in reuse R&D in other major markets, particularly ones dominated by sachets. 

We need more information, and less industry rhetoric.

For such a long report, it sure is short on important details. Word choice in these types of communications really matter, and Unilever is still too focused on waste instead of reduction at source, recycling instead of reuse, and alternatives instead of zero waste solutions. Its commitment to be 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable doesn’t reflect that these are not created equal in terms of their impact on the planet and communities. We want to see Unilever continue to be engaged in the Global Plastics Treaty dialogue, prioritizing reduction and reuse, and driving important industry discussions on real solutions. We have a lot of outstanding questions but above all we have a clear message – until Unilever commits to FULLY phase out sachets, double down on reuse, and create a real plan for its other billions of single-use plastic packaged products, the annual report subtext will always be: profit over people and the planet. 

Unilever’s role in the plastic crisis

Unilever has positioned Dove as a brand with an environmental and social conscience. But global plastic pollution brand audits, community accounts, and years of inaction on known harms to people and the planet make it easy to question Unilever’s true intentions. The dirtier sides of Dove’s parent company’s business. 

• Pushed a disposable business model on communities, destroying traditional low waste practices. 
• Sells tens of billions of plastic sachets each year, knowing waste management infrastructure cannot process this type of small, single-use, multilayered packaging.
• One of the world’s Top Plastic Polluters year after year, based on clean-ups and audits. 

Plastic isn’t only driving the triple planetary crisis, it’s becoming a global human health concern. Customers rub Dove products all over their bodies, they squeeze Hellman’s mayo out of a plastic bottle onto their sandwich, and they make their children soup with Knorr stock aged in plastic. The science on the potential health risks associated with plastic packaging is building, and presenting a whole new risk layer that the company is clearly not accounting for. Will 2026 shift the new CEO’s thinking and priorities? We call on Unilever to:

• Create a time-bound, phase out plan for sachets
• Transition away from all plastic packaging
• Invest in reuse and refill systems at a scale matching its plastic footprint
• Support the reduction of out of control plastic production
• Shift innovation, design, and marketing away from disposability
• Support a strong Global Plastics Treaty that prioritises reduction and reuse

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

Sarah King is a Senior Campaign Strategist for the Plastic Free Future Campaign at Greenpeace Canada

Everyone likes a nice, affordable t-shirt or a baby Pikachu costume, but while fast fashion may look cheap on the price tag, a recent Greenpeace Germany investigation shows the real cost is shouldered by the workers, the environment and future generations. And it does not spare the buyers. Let’s unwrap this.

What is fast fashion?

The term ‘Fast fashion’ describes the rapid mass production of cheap, low-quality clothing that often mimics popular catwalk styles. In simpler terms, it refers to clothes that are made and sold cheaply, so that people buy new clothes often. It’s ‘fast’ in so many ways. Its production, the customer’s decision to buy it, its delivery, its usage and its disposal are all fast.

Brands most often associated with fast fashion include giants like Zara and H&M, as well as online retailers such as ASOS and Fashion Nova, which churn out huge volumes of trend-based clothing at low prices as often as one microseason a week. Newer ultra fast fashion platforms like Shein and Temu take this even further, adding thousands of new styles at rock-bottom prices every day and helping to normalise disposable clothing culture worldwide.

What are the environmental and health costs of fast fashion?

The ever-growing piles of discarded clothing reflect extreme resource use, severe pollution, microplastic contamination and exploitative working conditions. But fast fashion’s harm goes beyond the supply chain.

In fact, it’s also present in the clothes themselves. The products can contain hazardous chemicals that are linked to cancer, hormonal and immune system disruption, allergic reactions, as well as toxic effects on fish, plants and other organisms in rivers, lakes and seas. 

People in producing countries are particularly affected, as these substances are often used and disposed of with little or no oversight, contaminating waterways and soils. Because much fast fashion is made from synthetic fibres like polyester, every wash releases microplastic fibres into rivers and oceans, where they accumulate in marine food webs and even end up in our bodies.

What percentage of global carbon emissions comes from the fashion industry?

The fashion industry as a whole is responsible for up to 10 % of global carbon emissions annually. That’s more than the emissions of international flights and maritime shipping combined. The carbon emissions of fashion comes not only from fast fashion but it is worth noting that the carbon footprint of fast fashion consumption is 11 times higher than that of traditional fashion. 

But the emissions are only part of the story. Fast fashion garments often end up in the Global South. 

How does fast fashion impact the Global South?

A 2025 Unearthed and Greenpeace Africa investigation revealed that clothes discarded by UK consumers and shipped to Ghana have been found in protected wetlands, which are a critical biodiversity area. Reporters found garments from Next, George at Asda, and Marks & Spencer.

The clothes were in, or close to, two recently-established dump sites filled with used clothing inside an internationally recognised wetland an hour outside Ghana’s capital city, Accra. Locals complain that their fishing nets, waterways and beaches are clogged with synthetic fast fashion exported to Ghana from the UK and Europe.

In 2024, a report by Greenpeace Africa and Greenpeace Germany revealed the alarming scale of environmental and public health damage caused by the global second-hand clothing trade in Ghana. It exposed the devastating impact of discarded clothing from the Global North, much of it fast fashion, on the environment, communities, and ecosystems in Ghana.

The exploitation, therefore, happens at both ends of the garment’s life, the people who make it and the people who live amongst its waste after its disposal.

Fast fashion and exploitative labour practices: the human cost

Sustainability is not just about environmental impact. It is also about social justice. Fast fashion needs a skilled operator of many different machines. They are mostly women working for low wages in a punishing global system. 

Fast fashion brands exploit low-wage labour in countries with weak environmental and labour protections. Factories in Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and many other countries are notorious for unsafe working conditions, poverty wages, and pollution that devastates local communities. 

Thirteen years ago, the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh collapsed in a preventable tragedy. We still remember the more than 1,100 garment workers who lost their lives and the thousands who were injured. But Rana Plaza was neither the first garment factory disaster nor will it be the last, unless we change course. 

Can fast fashion be green?

Fast fashion brands like to jump on the sustainability wagon, monetising what was once an opposition to their practices. If you have an issue with how this garment was made, maybe this ‘eco friendly’ label will reassure you and make you feel better about it. Incentivising you to buy it. 

The truth is, fast fashion will never be green. Its business model is inherently incompatible with true sustainability. 

For one, it fuels and thrives on overproduction which leads to millions of garments in landfills or incinerated each year with dire environmental consequences especially in the Global South. 

Its supply chain is resource-intensive. The industry is the second-largest consumer of water worldwide, with textile production consuming vast quantities of this precious resource. As revealed by Greenpeace’s DetoxMyFashion campaign, the textiles and clothing industries are a major source of water pollution, and a significant source of hazardous chemicals and pollution of waterways in key production regions in the Global South.  

Fast fashion encourages disposable consumption. It survives by convincing consumers to buy more than they need. While brands attempt to improve their image with ‘eco-friendly’ collections, their fundamental business model remains unchanged. 

SHEIN – The epitome of what’s wrong with fast fashion

Shein ticks every fast fashion box and more. The company’s model is driven by digital, real-time monitoring of trends, stolen and AI-generated designs, and a dense network of supplier factories in China operating under intense pressure. Thousands of new products go online every day, more than 10,000 on peak days. 

A recent Greenpeace Germany investigation revealed that among other chemicals, the plasticizers phthalates and the water- and dirt-repellent “forever chemical” PFAS were detected in Shein products. These are hazardous chemicals that have been linked to various diseases, including cancer, reproductive disorders, and growth disorders in children, as well as a weakened immune system. This likely particularly affects workers and the environment in the production countries but it also reaches into consumers worldwide as they are exposed to these chemicals through skin contact, sweat, or inhaled fibres, and when garments are washed or discarded, the substances enter rivers, soil, and the food chain.

The use of hazardous chemicals in fast fashion is not a fringe mistake but a deliberate feature of the business model. They are cheaper than safer alternatives and enable rapid, high-volume production.

Is fast fashion worth it?

The simple answer is: No. While it might be tempting and accessible to many, fast fashion is harmful to consumers, workers, and the environment. Its devastating impact transcends geographical and social boundaries. Affecting people’s health and environment for the sake of more profit. 

True sustainability demands a shift away from overproduction and overconsumption, yet fast fashion brands refuse to adopt this model because it threatens their profits and instead invest in greenwashing campaigns.

Everyone wants to look good without going broke. It’s understandable. Most people who buy fast fashion do so because it’s accessible, size-inclusive, or simply because it’s what they can afford in a cost-of-living crisis. There is no shame in needing clothes but while a fast fashion garment is disposable by design, our planet and the people who make those clothes are not. 

Consider sharing, exchanging and repairing clothes. Find a local second-hand shop and the next time you see a new ‘must-have’ trend at an ‘impossible’ price, please remember that someone, somewhere, is paying the difference. 

Amsterdam – Greenpeace International has condemned threats by Donald Trump to target Iran’s electricity infrastructure, warning it could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe, trigger a blackout over a large part of the country and risk nuclear disaster escalating into a wider regional crisis.

Greenpeace warns that attacks on the grid could have a knock-on effect that increases the danger of a nuclear emergency at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, with potential consequences across the region.[1]

“Bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk,” said Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International.[2]

“A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster.”[3]

Iran’s grid is already under strain due to war, climate change and sanctions leading to underinvestment.[4]

“If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis,” says Vande Putte.

The US, Israel and Iran have all targeted energy infrastructure, and several attacks in Iran and Israel already appear to have come close to hitting nuclear facilities. Iran is also threatening to target water and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries.[5] Greenpeace is urging all parties to step back from escalation and pursue a diplomatic solution now, warning that further escalation will only deepen human suffering and increase global instability.

The Bushehr nuclear plant was built and is operated by Iran’s nuclear enabler, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation.

ENDS

Notes:

[1] Trump Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran’s Power Plants If Strait of Hormuz Stays Closed and Attacks on Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure: Harm to the Civilian Population

[2] Cascading Failures in Power Grids 

[3] Risk of unprecedented nuclear disaster if Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electricity system continue 

[4] Strikes on Iranian electricity infrastructure could trigger a water catastrophe

[5] Iran threatens to cripple Gulf water, energy systems after Trump ultimatum

Contact: 

Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert, Greenpeace International: +32 496161584, jan.vande.putte@greenpeace.org

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

Amsterdam, Netherlands – Leading environmental groups Greenpeace International and Mighty Earth have issued an open letter to McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski, urging the fast-food giant to intervene as major soy traders abandon the Amazon Soy Moratorium.

The letter calls on McDonald’s to use its significant market influence to secure a renewed pledge from key traders – including Cargill, Bunge, ADM, and Louis Dreyfus Company – to remain committed to the criteria of the landmark zero-deforestation pact. It further demands that McDonald’s makes it “unequivocally clear” that the company will cut ties with any suppliers that withdraw from or fail to uphold zero deforestation commitments. 

Lis Cunha, Campaigner at Greenpeace International said: 

“The world’s largest soy traders pulling out of the Amazon Soy Moratorium is not merely a policy shift; it is a retreat from a mechanism that has been a primary bulwark against ecological collapse. As one of the world’s most recognisable brands and a founding member of the pact, McDonald’s has a moral responsibility to do all it can to prevent its partners from turning their backs on zero deforestation.”

The letter notes in particular McDonald’s over 45 year corporate partnership with Cargill, who is among a number of the world’s biggest soy traders now reportedly backing away from the Amazon Soy Moratorium.[1] Signatories warn that Cargill and other major suppliers abandoning the Moratorium render it “functionally impossible” for McDonald’s to guarantee its soy supply chains are not linked to new deforestation of the Amazon, violating McDonald’s global commitment to halting deforestation.[2]

McDonald’s played a pivotal role in establishing the Moratorium 20 years ago after Greenpeace International’s Eating Up the Amazon report exposed how soy grown on deforested land was entering the company’s poultry supply chain. In response to global pressure and activist “chicken” protests at its restaurants, McDonald’s led a coalition of retailers to demand that commodity traders halt the expansion of soy into newly deforested areas.[3] Since its adoption, the Moratorium helped reduce the share of soy grown on newly deforested land in the Amazon from 30% to less than 4% as of July 2025.

Boris Patentreger, forests and nature lead at Mighty Earth said: 

“McDonalds can be a saboteur or a saviour of the Soy Moratorium zero deforestation goal. The fast-food giant must choose to fight for a mechanism that has spared huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest from being destroyed over the last twenty years. That means holding the big soy traders to their commitments and cutting ties with suppliers abandoning the ASM. Or sourcing only from those who comply with the moratorium criteria and continue to implement their DCF policies, without rolling back. There cannot be a soy-free-for-all that will push the Amazon ever closer to collapse.”

On 5 January 2026, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE), which represents the largest companies involved in Brazil’s soy industry, announced plans to withdraw from the Soy Moratorium, following new legislation in Mato Grosso that strips tax benefits from companies participating in voluntary environmental pacts. If the Moratorium collapses, estimates suggest deforestation in the Amazon could surge by as much as 30% by 2045 as producers revert to weaker legal standards that allow for the clearing of primary rainforest. ABIOVE and many of its members completed their withdrawal on 16 February.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• The full letter is available here.
• The letter comes days after Brazil’s government warned of the threat posed to the country’s agriculture sector by the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz threatening global fertiliser supplies [4]

[1] Reuters, ‘Major Brazilian grain traders quit Amazon conservation pact’, 5 January 2026

[2] McDonald’s, ‘Nature, Forests and Water’, 2025 

[3] The Guardian, ‘The Odd Couple’, 2 August 2006 

[4] Reuters. Brazil sounds alarm as fertilizers price spike spurs cheaper alternatives, 18 March 2026 

Contacts:

Joe Evans, Global Comms Lead at Greenpeace UK, +44 7890 595387, joe.evans@greenpeace.org.

Carole Mitchell, Global Director of Communications at Mighty Earth, +44 7917 105000, carole@mightyearth.org.

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

New York, USA – Greenpeace is demanding governments curb corporate interference in ocean protection as crucial Ocean Treaty talks begin at UN headquarters in New York today.

The talks are expected to have a crucial impact on the power of destructive industrial fishing activity on the high seas, which campaigners say could have “catastrophic” consequences.[1]

Megan Randles, head of Greenpeace’s delegation to the talks, said:

“The fishing industry has been lobbying to weaken the Ocean Treaty for years. We need governments to curb corporate influence now, stop kowtowing to industry pressure, and stop the process from being tied up in delays. If they don’t, the result will be catastrophic for ocean protection. 

“The organisations that manage fishing in the high seas have always protected industry interests, that’s why we’re calling for a limit on how much influence they would have on sanctuary proposals, which are urgently needed for the ocean to recover. Governments must not allow the fishing industry’s influence to hold the Treaty process to ransom.”

Fully protected sanctuaries would cordon off huge areas of the ocean from destructive human activity, but it’s something that the fishing industry has been lobbying against for years. 

Greenpeace is calling on governments to curb the influence of fishing industry lobbying before it’s too late, and ensure that fully protected high seas sanctuaries can be created without delay. Governments must therefore impose a maximum 120 day time limit for the review of sanctuary proposals, this would prevent the organisations that control high seas fishing, and fishing industry interests, from stalling the process. These Regional Fishing Management Organisations (RFMOs) have always protected the interests of the fishing industry, overseen the decimation of biodiversity and destruction of entire ecosystems, and therefore must not be allowed to tie up ocean protection in delays.[2]  

Governments have committed to protecting 30% of the ocean in the next four years, a target that scientists say is the absolute minimum required for the ocean to bounce back from decades of destruction. Making sure that the process of creating sanctuaries isn’t tied up in delays will be vital to this progress. 

It is in the best interest of the fishing industry that RFMOs retain their power over the high seas.[3] That’s why during the Ocean Treaty negotiations, they lobbied governments hard to ensure that the Treaty wouldn’t undermine RFMO power. They even tried and failed to remove fishing activity from the scope of the Global Ocean Treaty altogether. This would have been a disaster for ocean protection.

ENDS

Notes: 

1. The next round of Ocean Treaty talks, the Third Preparatory Commission (Prepcom 3), will begin at the United Nations in New York on 23 March. They are extremely important as key recommendations will be made on how the first Ocean COP (expected some time before January 2027) can deliver the protection needed to allow the ocean to recover from decades of destruction.
   
2. Out of an assessment of 48 high seas fish stocks we know to be in the high seas 75% were considered depleted or overfished in 2016.
    
3. The fishing industry has been actively lobbying against ocean protection measures and to protect its profit margins for decades. Last year, InfluenceMap found that nearly all major seafood companies lobby against ocean protection. Twenty-nine of the 30 biggest seafood firms analysed were pushing policies that clash with global biodiversity goals. Behind the scenes, the same players were working to block the creation or expansion of ocean sanctuaries. 

To receive a full media briefing please use the contacts below. 

Contact:

Florri Burton, Global Media Lead, Oceans Are Life, Greenpeace Nordic, +447896523839, florri.burton@greenpeace.org 

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

Talking about health and water can feel heavy, especially when words like “carcinogen” or “cancer” come up. Realising our water might carry health risks can leave us feeling vulnerable and anxious for our family’s well-being. But here’s the good news: knowledge is our best filter. 

This World Water Day, March 22nd, we aren’t just sharing a “scary” study; we’re sharing the science of prevention. When we know the real numbers, we can demand the real solutions. While industrial meat and dairy production is expanding, a massive scientific alarm is sounding from Denmark to New Zealand. It’s called Nitrate (NO₃). But, what is it?

Nitrate is a colourless, odourless, and tasteless chemical compound. In industrial farming, it comes from the gross overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and the staggering volume of manure and urine from intensive meat and dairy farms. When plants can’t absorb it all, it leaches deep into the earth and into the groundwater, the source of many people’s drinking water.

While Big Ag executives hide behind the claim that they are ‘feeding the world,’ their own run-off is poisoning the very communities they claim to serve. Here are the 5 facts about Nitrate (NO₃) that show our current water laws need an upgrade.

1. The current nitrate limit is a 1950s relic

First, breathe. The global health standard of 50 mg/L of drinking water nitrate isn’t a “danger cliff” you fall off, it’s just a “hopelessly out of date” limit from 1958. Science has simply gotten better at seeing the small details since then. It was set then to prevent “Blue Baby Syndrome” (acute oxygen deprivation in infants), this limit was never designed to protect you from the chronic exposure risks we can now measure in 2026.

Think of it like car safety: in 1958, we didn’t have mandatory seatbelts or airbags. We aren’t in a crisis because the water changed overnight; we’re in a moment of clarity because our scientific “microscopes” got sharper. We’ve traded rotary phones for smartphones; it’s time we traded “1950s basic safety” for modern medical precision.

2. 3.87 mg/L is an “early warning,” a scientific benchmark for precaution

The landmark study from Denmark tracking 2.7 million people over 23 years found that long-term exposure to drinking water nitrate levels above 3.87 mg/L is where we should start paying attention to bowel cancer risks. That is 12 times lower than the current “safe” limit.

Think of this number as a smoke detector for our water. It doesn’t mean there is a fire in every glass; it means we have the ability to detect risk much earlier than we did in the 1950s. By identifying this “Early Warning” level, we can push for source water protection before it does more harm to our communities.

3. Our bodies are natural filters (up to a point)

Your body is an incredible biological system, but even the best filter has a limit. While we naturally process small amounts of nitrate from food, drinking water with high concentrations from industrial runoff can overwhelm our bodies. In the acidic environment of the stomach, this excess is converted into harmful N-nitroso compounds, which are linked to increased cancer risks.

We shouldn’t be forced to be the “unpaid filters” for corporate waste. The latest science shows this biological overload has a real cost. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing health risks from exposure to nitrate at much lower levels than the current legal limits in most countries.

High nitrate levels can also act as an “Oxygen Thief,” making it harder for the blood to carry the vital oxygen a developing baby needs. A massive study of 1.2 million births even linked nitrate-contaminated water above 22.5mg/L NO₃ to a 47% higher risk of preterm birth. We aren’t “falling off a cliff” at the current limit, but we are being “soaked” by a standard that was never designed to take account of long-term health risks. 

4. We already have the map to fix it

The best part about modern science? It gives us a GPS for protection. In Aotearoa (New Zealand), Spain and Denmark, organisations have mapped where nitrate levels are highest. This is incredible news because it means we don’t have to guess. We can start by protecting the “Red Zones”, the specific areas where communities rely on groundwater the most.

Is your tap in a “Red Zone”? Knowledge is your first filter. You can explore the data for your region right now. Explore the Greenpeace Aotearoa: Know Your Nitrate Map Explore the Greenpeace Spain: Nitrate Water Pollution Map Explore the Greenpeace Denmark: Know your Nitrate Map

5. Transitioning is smarter than cleaning

The most encouraging part? We already know how to fix this. In 2024, Danish researchers reviewed the data and concluded that the societal cost of nitrate-linked illness is estimated at $317 million USD annually in Denmark. A similar study in Aotearoa New Zealand calculated health costs of $43 million a year, in New Zealand.

Denmark’s solution wasn’t to panic, but to pivot. The Government commissioned an expert working group to recommend a health-based standard. Their advice? Introduce a 6 mg/L limit on nitrate and convert high-risk farmland back into nature or organic buffer zones. 

The World Water Day goal: A health-based standard

We don’t want you to be afraid of your tap; we want you to be proud of it. 

Imagine a world where “perfectly legal” actually means “perfectly safe.” Where the water flowing into your home isn’t a source of “what-ifs,” but a testament to a food system that respects the Earth and the families it feeds. By calling for a new, science-led assessment of our water standards, we aren’t just moving a number on a page. We are drawing a line in the sand and demanding a precautionary approach that prioritises families over factory farms. We are forcing a long-overdue look at the outdated limits in high-livestock “red zones” to ensure that the water in our taps is truly safe for a lifetime. It is time to force Big Ag to clean up its act so that our communities, and our health, are never the cost of their corporate profit again.

History shows us that the law is often the last thing to change, long after the science has sounded the alarm. We saw it with leaden paint, where children’s health was traded for industrial convenience for decades. We saw it with asbestos, where vested interests spent millions to bury the truth while workers paid with their lives.

In both cases, the science was clear, but the policy only shifted when people power finally overcame corporate profit. Today, we are at that same crossroads with our water. The 50 mg/L limit is a more than 60-year-old relic of an era that didn’t foresee the true cost of industrial runoff. This World Water Day, let’s choose evidence over anxiety. Let’s demand a standard that reflects the best of modern science, not the worst of Big Ag’s industrial habits.

The science is clear. The roadmap is ready. Now, we just need the political will.

Stop Big Meat and Dairy

It’s time to cut through corporate lies, cut agriculture emissions and shift towards sustainable agroecology.

Sign now!

Amanda Larsson is the Food and Agriculture Global Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Aotearoa.

Unless you’re studying for a high school science exam, lithium, nickel, copper, and cobalt probably won’t carry much meaning beyond being elements on the periodic table. But if there is a time to pull out those dusty science books, it would be now.

Across various sectors, these minerals are of increasing importance, including – perhaps most prominently – renewable energy generation and storage, and electric vehicles; but also other large and growing sectors such as military and AI (e.g., for datacenters). And around the world, many governments and companies are competing to control who can dig them up.

The global minerals rush

These raw Earth materials are often called “critical minerals” by governments and the mining industry, typically a reflection of national political priorities rather than essential societal or energy transition needs. This risks turning these minerals into the focus of a new neo-colonial resource grab, with powerful countries and corporations racing to control them, and wasting their potential to power a fair and green transition.

Globally – from Chile, Argentina, DRC, Indonesia, Sweden to the deep sea – the extractivist rush for minerals puts vital ecosystems, peoples’ rights and the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities at risk. The geopolitical scramble over minerals has also been linked to the current US government’s aggressive annexation threats to Greenland.

Minerals have different uses, and there are no guarantees that the minerals mined “in the name of energy transition” are used for wind turbines or energy storage. For example, big tech companies are consuming more and more of these minerals to expand AI infrastructure (such as datacenters). In addition to driving up energy demand and emissions, the vision of ‘progress’ advocated by big tech oligarchs also threatens to worsen extractive pressures on people and nature, and divert minerals away from energy transition. Moreover, mineral use in the expansion of AI-driven warfare systems has been found as a particularly concerning development.  

In light of this, it is more important than ever to demand coordinated action to ensure that minerals are used where they matter most: principally, for a fast fair fossil fuel phase out and a transition to clean, affordable renewable energy and sustainable transport systems. 

So how do we protect people and nature in the energy transition?

Reduce, recycle, restrict for a safeguarded energy transition

In a report commissioned by Greenpeace International, and authored by academics at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in Australia, we’ve found that an ambitious energy transition can be achieved without mining in vital ecosystems – whether on land or at sea. With visionary leadership, sound policies, and innovative technologies, we can keep global warming within 1.5°C, safeguard vital ecosystems and reduce extractive pressures on people and nature.

Here’s five ways how:

1. Reduce mineral demand with improved public transport, car-sharing, and smaller, more efficient vehicles

Accessibility, efficiency, and reliability in how cities are governed make them great places to live in. Having improved public transport systems is one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for mineral-intensive electric vehicles and the batteries that power them. In addition to expanding high-quality public transport, employing car-sharing schemes, and investing in active mobility (e.g. walking and cycling infrastructure) would significantly decrease reliance on individual car ownership. 

As an added bonus improving our public transport systems is essential not just for climate, but for connecting people to opportunities. Mobility justice is climate justice.

2. Incentivise and substitute battery technology towards alternatives requiring less lithium, cobalt, or nickel

Think about how many items you use that require batteries? Without it, our personal gadgets would be useless; we wouldn’t have advancement in items like electric cars or bikes; and batteries can also help store and use more eco-friendly sources of energy, such as solar and wind. But the production of large batteries is highly mineral-intensive. 

Luckily, over the last decade, technological innovation has transformed the market. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, now widely commercialised, eliminate the need for cobalt and nickel, reducing pressure on these supply chains. At the same time, sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries are advancing rapidly, and offer a pathway to significantly reduce mineral demand for lithium, according to the report. It shows that, using innovative battery technologies and energy storage systems that do not require these key minerals would significantly reduce supply gaps for key minerals and ease potential development pressures for new mines targeting them.

3. Design for circularity and scale up recycling 

We all know the drill by now – reduce, reuse, recycle. When it comes to transition minerals, this maxim is of key importance. 

By maximising collection and the recovery of transition minerals from end-of-life transition technologies, recycling can significantly reduce the need for new extraction. Investing in advanced recycling technologies and collection systems, alongside policy incentives that reward high recycled mineral content in new products, ensures that transition minerals re-enter the supply chain. 

Additional circularity measures like extending technologies’ lifespans, improving repairability, incentivising reuse, designing and standardising components for easy disassembly to help with repair and recycling, and enforcing extended producer responsibility (EPR), could also contribute to reducing overall mineral demands. 

4. Prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition needs

Minerals are finite resources, and the practice of mining carries significant social, labour, and environmental risks. Therefore, the use of mineral resources should be prioritised where they matter most – in renewable energy and its storage and in electric mobility to enable a fast fair fossil fuel phase out. 

Governments and industries must prioritise mineral use towards a fast, fair, and just energy transition. Coupled with supply chain transparency, prioritising minerals for energy transition ensures finite minerals are used to advance climate goals that benefit all people and the planet.   

5. Protect key ‘Restricted Areas’ from mining development

Protecting human rights and ecological integrity is a non-negotiable foundation of a just and green transition. Restricted Areas have high environmental, ecological, and natural values, and may include Indigenous Peoples and local community territories. Defining and protecting these Restricted Areas is a crucial step to ensuring that mining of transition minerals respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to their territories, and does not destroy biodiversity, critical natural ecosystems, natural carbon storage, freshwater systems and oceans. 

After all, what is “critical” here is not a minerals scramble largely driven by geopolitical rivalry. Neither the AI race, nor the power and profit chased by States and corporations.

Critical are the ecosystems that all living beings on the planet depend on. 

Critical are the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 

Critical is meeting peoples’ needs and ensuring that current and future generations can live in a safe climate. 

For this, it’s essential for our world leaders to take courageous and coordinated action to protect people and the planet, and ensure our Earth’s minerals help create a green and just future, rather than being exploited for short-term profit. 

Stop Deep Sea Mining

We need a global moratorium to stop the launch of this destructive new extractive industry. Join the Campaign.

Add your name

Elsa Lee is the Co-Head of Biodiversity at Greenpeace International

The geopolitical tremor in the Strait of Hormuz has sent fertiliser prices into the stratosphere, exposing a direct link between the Iran war and food prices. But amid the devastating loss of life and destruction already unfolding, farmers and families are also being forced to worry about the cost of the next harvest, a different kind of machinery is whirring into motion in Washington and Brussels:the lobbying machine. Now is the time to break free from their playbook and implement just solutions that feed people, not corporate pockets.

History shows that for big agribusiness, a global crisis is less of a disaster and more of a strategic opportunity. We are about to witness a masterclass in how to parlay “food security” fears into corporate welfare and the gutting of environmental protections.

But we know their playbook!

Stop Big Meat and Dairy

It’s time to cut through corporate lies, cut agriculture emissions and shift towards sustainable agroecology.

Sign now!

1. The Big Ag playbook: Weaponising food security during war

Expect the term “food security” to be hollowed out and weaponised. Large-scale industrial players are already positioning themselves as the only thing standing between the public and empty shelves. In truth, it is this highly consolidated, chemical-dependent model of industrial farming that is making our global food system so fragile in the first place.

Their narrative is calculated: The world is in chaos, so the government must stop “burdening” agribusiness with regulations. They will attempt to use a temporary supply chain shock to permanently dismantle hard-won environmental standards.

2. The demand for deregulation

Their immediate targets are always environmental and community safeguards. Under the guise of “unleashing production,” lobbyists are likely to push for:

• Suspending rules to allow the spreading of animal manure, sacrificing groundwater safety and community health. 
• Stalling pesticide reduction laws with false claims that they threaten food security, despite scientists proving that long-term security is impossible without healthy soil and pollinators. 
• Forcing legal bypasses to destroy millions of hectares of land previously set aside for bees, birds and soil recovery. 

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this script. During the 2022 supply chain shock that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the same type of lobbyists leveraged geopolitical instability to wrangle these concessions out of the European Commission. History is repeating itself as the European farmers’ lobby (Copa-Cogeca) is seizing this crisis to demand even more environmental rollbacks.

We’re also seeing lobbyists coming out in force in the UK and the US where, in a letter to President Donald Trump, the American Farm Bureau Federation took a predictable “emergency” stance, stating:

“The current volatility requires an immediate suspension of regulatory hurdles… We cannot prioritise administrative red tape over the ability of American farmers to feed a world in crisis.”

What this statement obscures is how farming has shifted from locally-owned, resilient family businesses to massive industrial “factory” operations run by some of the world’s wealthiest corporations. The factory farming model is inherently fragile – as soon as one gear in the global supply chain snaps, the entire machine breaks down.

3. The great public-to-private wealth transfer

While big business demands less “interference” from the state in the form of rules, they are simultaneously demanding more “interference” in the form of cash. Agribusiness is archetypal of a system that socialises the risk and privatises the profit. 

When prices are low, they dominate the market; when input prices spike, they demand “bridge payments” to keep their fragile model afloat.

Meanwhile the rest of us pay the price. The cost of cleaning up polluted drinking water, for example, generally isn’t paid by Big Ag. It’s paid by everyday families, through taxes and rates.

The predictable outcome?

• Taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for emergency fertiliser subsidies, effectively bailing out the super rich Big Ag executives.
• Farmers remain trapped in a cycle of chemical addiction, lining the pockets of fertiliser giants like Nutrien and The Mosaic Company. During the 2022 crisis, these two companies saw their profits reach staggering record highs while farmers struggled to break even.
• Agribusinesses announce record windfall profits, fuelled by the very volatility they claimed would ruin them. In 2022, Cargill reportedly raked in a record US $165 billion in revenue – a 23% increase, during a global food crisis.
  

Real food security comes from your local farmer

If we want true independence, we have to stop propping up chemical-addicted industrial farming. Local, ecological farming is the only real path to food sovereignty. By working with nature to fix nutrients in the soil naturally, farmers can break the cycle of dependence.

This does four amazing things at once:

• Saves money: Farmers slash their costs, protecting your food prices.
• Cleans our water: It stops toxic chemical run-off from polluting our rivers and drinking water.
• Protects wildlife: It restores space for bees, birds, and biodiversity.
• Fights climate change: It cuts the massive emissions of the industrial food system.

Real food security isn’t something we can buy from a chemical factory in another country. It doesn’t come from trading off clean drinking water for more polluting production. And it certainly doesn’t come from handing over more cash to the already-wealthy.

Here’s what should happen instead

Short Term: Stop bailing out the corporate middleman. If emergency funds are deployed, they should go directly to regular people to offset food costs, rather than into the bank accounts of chemical suppliers and millionaire shareholders.

Long Term: Fund the transition, not the status quo. Food security is grown from the ground up through healthy soil and local resilience.

We cannot allow the greed of the agribusiness lobby to use this crisis as a mandate for deregulation. It is time to fund a model that serves our communities and our planet, not just the billionaires at the top of the food chain.

Stop Big Meat and Dairy

It’s time to cut through corporate lies, cut agriculture emissions and shift towards sustainable agroecology.

Sign now!

Amanda Larsson is the Food and Agriculture Global Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Aotearoa.

Note: Edited on 20/03/2026 to include reference to direct link between the Iran war and food prices.