New York, United States –  Campaigners from organisations around the world today delivered petitions with a combined total of over 2 million signatures to Selwin Hart, Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Action at the United Nations, calling on governments to Make Polluters Pay and ensure fossil-fuel companies are taxed more to pay their fair share for the climate damage they have caused.

The petition delivery took place in New York as world leaders gathered for the UN General Assembly, following a season marked by devastating wildfires, floods and deadly climate disasters, alongside continued energy insecurity linked to dependence on oil and gas.

Mads Christensen, Executive Director, Greenpeace International said: “2026 is a year the whole world could feel. August was the hottest month ever recorded, and scientists confirmed we are close to breaking the 1.5°C limit governments swore to hold. The climate crisis is here, and it falls hardest on the people who did the least to cause it. The biggest oil companies keep chasing profit to the last barrel, fueling the very disasters wrecking lives, ready to burn everything behind them rather than change course. The wealthiest polluters should be permanently taxed more to pay for the damage they cause, not the families and communities left to pick up the bill. Governments now face a clear choice, and too many are still on the wrong side of it: keep shielding the wealthiest polluters, or stand with the rest of us paying the price. This is how we take the profit out of destruction and protect the generations to come. It is us, or them.”

The action brought together by the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition alongside frontline campaigners and communities, highlighted the growing gap between the costs being borne by ordinary people and the extraordinary profits continuing to flow to fossil-fuel companies.The campaign is calling on governments to introduce binding measures that make fossil-fuel companies contribute to the costs of the damage they have caused, including climate damages taxes, surtaxes on fossil-fuel profits and fines to fund recovery, adaptation and a just transition.

The over 2 million signatures represent people across countries and regions demanding that those who have profited from fossil fuels contribute their fair share to addressing the climate crisis. The petition presentation comes as governments discuss global security, resilience and economic stability at the UN General Assembly, with international negotiations on climate finance and global tax rules also approaching.

Selwin Hart, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Action said: “The fossil fuel industry right now is earning extraordinary profits. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the five largest oil companies have earned half a trillion in profits. As the climate crisis accelerates, developing countries are being starved of the resources they need to protect their communities and to safeguard livelihoods from a crisis they did literally nothing to cause. This is unjust. This is the heart of climate injustice. Polluters must pay, and the UN supports this effort, we are with you. We urge you to use every single legal and lawful tool at your disposal. Regulate, legislate and litigate. Civil society must use every tool at your disposal to hold the polluters accountable. You are on the right side of history.”

Anne Jellema, Executive Director, 350.org said:“For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: the companies that have profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream. We have watched homes burn, communities flood and families struggle with the rising costs of climate and energy crises, while fossil-fuel companies continue to make extraordinary profits. We pay. They profit. It’s time to change that.Now the voices of more than two million people are being brought to the United Nations. Governments have the power to make polluters pay,  and they must use it.” 

Amitabh Behar, Executive Director, Oxfam International said: “Super-rich polluters are causing the most climate damage while the rest of us are left to pay the price. The emissions of just five oil giants were enough to cause around one in four heatwaves since 2000, and the six biggest are on track to rake in $147 billion this year. Meanwhile, farmers, women and families across the Global South are losing their lives, harvests and homes to a climate emergency they did not create. There is no fixing the climate crisis without taking on the billionaires and corporations cashing in on it. Frontline communities and millions of people have made their demand clear: make the richest polluters pay. Now world leaders must find the courage to protect billions of lives instead of polluters’ billions of dollars.”

Fletcher Harper, Executive Director, GreenFaith said: “Every religion teaches the same moral principle: you do not get to harm your neighbor and walk away. That is why religious leaders around the globe are calling for climate polluters to pay for the damage they have caused. For 50 years, the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed $3 billion in daily profits while knowingly creating pollution responsible for one in five deaths globally. Communities worldwide are absorbing the mounting costs of climate damage. Those expenses have not been paid by the polluters. They have been pushed onto families, communities, and taxpayers. In moral terms, that is theft.”

Governments now have a clear mandate from millions of people: accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, invest in clean and affordable renewable energy, and make the companies that have profited from fossil fuels pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis.

ENDS

For further information, interviews and photos, please contact:

Gaby Flores, cflores@greenpeace.org, +1 214 454 3871

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

Photo and video available in the Greenpeace Media Library.

Notes:

The figure is the combined total of signatures across participating petitions. Some people may have signed more than one petition and there may be some duplication, so it does not represent a count of unique individuals. The petitions are united by the principle that those most responsible for climate breakdown – in particular fossil fuel corporations and their super-rich owners and investors – should now be taxed more to pay their fair share.’

(and why it matters for the Global Plastics Treaty)

The gravest consequences of the war are borne by people in Iran and across the region: lives lost, families displaced and essential infrastructure damaged. Its fossil fuel shock has also carried economic consequences far beyond the battlefield.

The war on Iran triggered an oil market crisis that sent shockwaves far and wide, and some consequences are still unfolding. Impacts rippled beyond energy and transport into shops and supermarkets, pharmacies and homes. People everywhere are still paying.

Nearly everything we buy, from shampoo bottles to strawberry packaging, is made from or with petrochemicals, wrapped in plastic, or both. But it does not have to be, and most people do not want it to be.

The war exposed a hidden risk in the plastics economy. Plastic depends on fossil fuel feedstocks and global petrochemical supply chains. When oil and gas supplies are disrupted, the cost and availability of packaging, medical supplies and everyday goods are disrupted too. Households, public services and communities ultimately pay.

The war has changed the terms of the debate around the Global Plastics Treaty. It has revealed the real costs of being tethered to the plastics supply chain. At the next round of treaty negotiations, governments have a choice. They can lock in deeper vulnerability to future price and supply shocks, or build economies resilient enough to withstand them.

Here are six things the conflict has shown us.

1. Plastic supply chains are vulnerable to fossil fuel shocks

The war disrupted plastic production, imports, and exports at once, sending costs soaring worldwide. Formosa Petrochemical Corp (FPCC), one of the world’s largest plastic producers, was forced to declare force majeure. This is a legal term meaning it could not meet contractual obligations because of circumstances beyond its control.

In Japan, polyethylene production, a plastic widely used in shopping bags and packaging, reportedly fell 62% in March. Shortages then spread from factories to supermarket shelves.

The fallout reached beyond supply chains to hospitals, where South Korea had to ban the hoarding of medical syringes. It reached household cupboards, where the price of body wash reportedly climbed 7.7% in a matter of weeks. It also reached children’s toy boxes. A US-based soft-toy manufacturer said its supplier in China had cited material cost increases of 10% to 15% within three weeks of the war starting.

Petrochemicals go into more than 6,000 everyday products, according to the US Department of Energy. The question is not whether every one of these products can change overnight. It is how many uses can be reduced, redesigned or replaced with safer, non-fossil-fuel alternatives.

2. The crisis created winners and losers

This conflict revealed new pressure points for countries whose industries depend heavily on plastics and petrochemical feedstocks. According to South Korean media, naphtha import prices rose 68% in a single month, while small and medium-sized manufacturers reported material shortages and cost increases of more than 20%.

As some producers were forced to scale back, China saw the conflict as a way to move beyond years of oversupply and low margins. Its own efforts to curb destructive overcapacity and price competition had struggled to resolve this problem. It increased exports to Asian markets, used accumulated inventory, ramped up idle capacity and absorbed demand left by disrupted competitors. One industry analyst has described this as a potentially lasting shift in market share.

Meanwhile, the US turned the same crisis into a windfall. Ethane-fed plants were less exposed to disruption at the Strait of Hormuz and kept input costs lower even as global prices climbed. Producers raised prices as markets tightened. Dow raised North American polyethylene prices by 10 cents a pound in March, then 15 cents in April, before doubling that increase days later. Another increase was announced in August.

LyondellBasell said its second-quarter earnings, excluding unusual items, rose nearly 600% year on year to US$1.4bn. Dow swung from a loss to a profit within a few quarters of the war’s start. This was not simply a story of market adjustment. Companies with less exposure to naphtha supply disruptions were better positioned to profit while producers and communities elsewhere absorbed the risks.

The benefits and harms of the petrochemical economy are not distributed fairly. Communities near extraction, refining and petrochemical facilities often carry pollution and health burdens, while countries dependent on imported fuel and feedstocks are exposed to prices they cannot control.

3. Households, public services and communities bear the costs

According to NielsenIQ data reported by Reuters, grocery prices in the US rose 2.9% year on year in the four weeks from the start of the war to 28 March. The same data showed bottled-water prices rising 5.8%, while nappies, pads and tampons, all of which contain plastics, rose by between 2% and 6%. School lunchboxes rose by more than 26%, the biggest increase of any school item, according to retail data.

Synthetic footwear could also become more expensive. With roughly 70% of synthetic shoe materials derived from petrochemicals, industry analysts project prices could rise by another 1.5% to 3% by late summer and autumn.

In Taiwan, the price of a basic plastic bag more than doubled, and Costco reportedly had to ration the number of food storage bags a single customer could buy. Companies and governments made the decisions that left economies exposed to this crisis, but it was ordinary people who paid for it. They paid through petrol, public transport, food, household goods and essential supplies.

The impacts are not shared equally. Lower-income households, small businesses, informal workers and countries reliant on imported fossil fuels and petrochemical feedstocks have far less room to absorb higher costs or shortages of essential goods.

4. Some governments are choosing reuse and resilience

In March, just weeks into the conflict, South Korea’s president, Lee Jae Myung, told his cabinet that the country’s deep reliance on petrochemicals made it difficult to predict where the next disruption would hit. He warned it ‘poses a serious threat to people’s daily lives’.

By April, he had moved from emergency response to longer-term reform, calling for a ‘plastics-free economy’. Taiwan’s government expanded reuse infrastructure to build a more resilient economy and reduce exposure to market fluctuations.

The lesson is not that scarcity or rationing is desirable. It is that planned, publicly supported reuse and reduction systems can protect people better than an economy dependent on volatile virgin plastic supply chains.

The question is whether enough governments act in time to avoid the next shockwave.

5. Reuse and reduction can work at scale

Industry has long argued that plastic is too convenient, too cheap and too embedded in everyday life to be meaningfully cut back. But when Taiwan’s plastic bags suddenly became scarce, the country continued to function. Retailers adjusted, the government expanded reuse programmes, and people brought their own bags.

As virgin plastic prices climbed, French retailer Carrefour committed to removing 5,000 tonnes of plastic from its packaging through refill formats and packaging reductions. It said it would pass the savings on to customers through lower prices.

This does not mean responsibility should fall on individuals. It means governments and businesses can build systems that make reuse, refill and less packaging easy, accessible and affordable.

Single-use plastic is embedded in retail systems, but it is not as indispensable as the industry claims. Cutting back is possible, and it can reduce costs as well as pollution.

6. Without structural change, the next shock is inevitable

The conflict is not over, and even when it is, disruptions will come again. A similar pattern played out in 2021, when the Ever Given blocked the Suez Canal for six days, disrupting global trade and adding to existing pressures on plastics supply chains. 

Exposure is also set to grow. The IEA predicts that plastics and petrochemicals are on track to become the single largest driver of growth in global oil demand through 2050.

Plastic producers are not separate from the fossil fuel economy. Petrochemicals are made from fossil fuel feedstocks, so continued growth in virgin plastic production deepens demand for oil and gas. It also locks communities and economies into exposure to future price shocks.

At the next round of Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, governments have a critical opportunity to cut dependence on fossil fuels, reduce the health harms caused by plastics and build systems more resilient to the next disruption.

A binding treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production is not only a win for public health, ecosystems and the climate. It could be a turning point for economic security, geopolitical stability and the resilience of the systems we all depend on.

A Global Plastics Treaty can help break the cycle

The lesson of the war on Iran is not that people should learn to live with shortages. It is that economies built around fossil fuels and ever-growing virgin plastic production are exposed to shocks they cannot control.

A strong, binding Global Plastics Treaty can help change that. By cutting plastic production, expanding accessible reuse systems and supporting a just transition away from fossil fuel dependence, governments can reduce pollution and help protect people from the next price shock.

Governments should protect people now while reducing future exposure. They should support reuse systems, invest in accessible refill and public services, and shift public investment away from fossil fuel and petrochemical expansion.

The people and communities least responsible for this system should not be the ones left paying for it. Governments must put public wellbeing, resilience and a liveable future ahead of the profits of fossil fuel and petrochemical companies.

For a more in-depth analysis, read our brief.

Lindsey Jurca is a Senior Plastics Campaigner at Greenpeace USA.

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

A march for the climate in Amsterdam, calling out the fossil gas scam in Bangkok, and protesting ammonia in Mexico City, here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Thailand – Greenpeace Thailand activists unfurled a 17 by 7 meter banner with the message “YOUR GAS DEAL, OUR LOSS” at the opening of GasTech 2026, calling out the Thai government and fossil fuel industry while challenging their promotion of fossil gas and LNG expansion as a solution for energy security, economic growth and the climate crisis. Greenpeace Thailand is calling on the government and energy companies attending Gastech 2026 to halt further fossil gas expansion and accelerate a just transition to renewable energy, with greater investment in renewable power, energy efficiency, energy storage and modernised power grids.

Netherlands – On Saturday, September 12, 2026, tens of thousands gathered in Amsterdam for the annual Climate March. Protesters demand an immediate end to fossil fuel reliance and corporate pollution, advocating for a fair and sustainable future for all.

Germany – Greenpeace Germany activists project a growing pile of coins onto a Hamburg Port fuel storage facility to protest soaring windfall profits in the German petrol market. They demand: ‘They profit – we pay!’

Mexico – Greenpeace Mexico holds a peaceful protest in Mexico City’s Zócalo to call on the head of the federal executive branch, President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, to instruct the relevant authorities to cancel the mega-ammonia plant being built by Grupo Proman, Gas y Petroquímica de Occidente (GPO), in Topolobampo, Sinaloa.

Previous

Next

Indonesia – Haze caused by forest and land fires along the Kapuas River in Kalibandung Village, Kubu Raya, West Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Germany – Greenpeace activists protest against the risks of cheap, disposable fashion outside the Berlin pop-up store of online retailer Shein, using barrier tape and banners. “Closed due to irresponsibility” reads a sign, whilst “Shame on you, Shein” is written on pink barrier tape. Greenpeace has repeatedly detected dangerously high concentrations of harmful substances – such as PFAS, the ‘forever chemicals’, and phthalates, a type of plasticiser – in clothing from Shein’s online range.

Turkiye – As Greenpeace’s iconic ship, the Arctic Sunrise, passed through the Bosphorus river activists on board unfurled a banner reading ‘Phase out coal, now!’.

Cameroon – Fifteen volunteers from Yaoundé took part in an ecological march and cleanup alongside the CNEDD (a Cameroonian non-governmental organization that promotes sustainable development and environmental protection) association to raise awareness and collect plastic waste. After the march, the participants debated the topic of plastic.

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

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

Why Australia must ensure COP31 accelerates the transition away from fossil fuels
21 September 2026

Ahead of the UNGA General Debate, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese delivered a speech at the opening of New York Climate Week, titled: ‘The New Stakes: climate security is national security’. In response, Dr Simon Bradshaw, COP31 Lead for Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:

“It is encouraging to see the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledging the immediate and profound climate threat to communities in the Pacific, Australia and worldwide, and the need to work together, with bravery and compassion. Now we must match those words with real action to phase out fossil fuels.

“Earlier this month in Palau, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed to help accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and defend the crucial goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. However, Australia continues to undermine its aspirations for global climate leadership by expanding fossil fuel production, approving 37 coal and gas projects since elected.

“Australia fought hard for the privilege to chair the next round of global climate negotiations in partnership with the Pacific. The world is crying out for a clear vision and leadership from Australia as we head towards COP31 in Antalya. Australia must ensure COP31 boosts our shared security by accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels — get this right, and Australia will emerge as a responsible middle power and force for good in troubled times.”

Starting today, world leaders are gathering in New York for the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), with a spotlight on our urgent global challenges in the context of a worldwide economic disruption caused by conflicts and geopolitical instability.

Amid these tensions, the 2026 UNGA is a critical moment in the international climate calendar to revitalise global cooperation and multilateralism, with a key focus on the intensifying climate risks. The UNGA will be complemented by New York Climate Week (NYCW) – which runs from 20-27 September.

Outgoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres is expected to make climate a central part of his legacy, declaring “the world stands at a juncture where joint leadership, not division, can save the planet.”

Guterres will host a High-Level Event on Climate Action and the Just Transition – a summit that comes after the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a groundbreaking report declaring the world will overshoot the 1.5°C global warming threshold within the next few years. 

Overshooting 1.5°C – a limit leaders committed to pursuing in the Paris Agreement – will worsen extreme weather impacts and intensify the risks of climate change. This prospect makes this year’s UNGA a pivotal moment for political leaders to respond.

The UNGA High-Level Week 2026 will run from 18 September 2026 to 28 September 2026 and Greenpeace will be covering the UNGA with a live blog, bringing you regular updates and insights. Check back here for rolling updates throughout the coming week.

Amsterdam, Netherlands — NVIDIA, the world’s most valuable company by market capitalisation, has been using greenwashing tricks to misleadingly mask its staggering emissions impacts, finds a new analysis. According to the briefing, NVIDIA’s indirect emissions have risen 725% since 2020[1], and it is estimated that undisclosed emissions from the use of sold chips could be up to double that.

Avex Li, Project Lead for Greenpeace East Asia’s AI Supply Chain Campaign, said:

“NVIDIA wants the world to believe that AI will solve the climate crisis, while ignoring the rapidly growing emissions behind its own products and billion-dollar supply chain networks. As one of the world’s biggest beneficiaries and a key player in the AI frenzy, with immense market power, cash flow, and influence, NVIDIA cannot distance itself from the real-world environmental impacts of its business.”

The briefing, written by analyst and lead author Ketan Joshi and a consortium of civil society groups, including Greenpeace International, Beyond Fossil Fuels, Friends of the Earth, Green Screen Coalition, Stand.Earth, Kairos Fellowship, and Climate Action Against Disinformation, is the first analysis of greenwashing-style statements commonly used by NVIDIA.[2] 

NVIDIA’s business lies primarily in chips manufactured in East Asia and sold across the world, consuming vast amounts of energy throughout their lifecycle[3]. At the end of the line, they are largely used in new, similarly energy- and water-hungry data centre buildings, mainly for the purpose of operating generative AI[4]. Both pillars of this business model share a common outcome: they exacerbate the climate crisis and adversely affect local communities[5]. 

Xueying Wu, campaigner on Big Tech for Greenpeace International, added:
“NVIDIA is driving a system of tech colonialism: monopolising the profits of AI while offloading its ecological impacts onto the Global Majority. Meanwhile, NVIDIA together with other tech giants is inflating the AI bubble that gambles with global financial stability, concentrating more and more power in tech corporations’ hands.”

Greenpeace demands tech serving the public good.More specifically, NVIDIA must accelerate the energy transition by:

• investing deeply in new/additional renewable energy globally 
• expanding its 100% renewable energy target from its own corporate operations to cover its entire manufacturing supply chain by 2030, in places like Taiwan in East Asia

ENDS

NVIDIA’s climate hoax : Full Report 

Notes:

[1] The briefing compiles NVIDIA’s own disclosures between 2020 and 2026 to show for the first time that its Scope 3 emissions, primarily from product manufacturing, have risen 725% over that period. It also uses estimated chip power consumption to show emissions from the use of sold chips could be up to 21 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2025. ‘Scope 3’ emissions (Category 1-8) relate to measured greenhouse gas impacts outside the formal boundaries of the company’s activities, such as the emissions from manufacturing raw materials used in manufacturing, or the use of products sold by a company.

[2] NVIDIA distracts from these emissions using three key claims. First, they claim AI’s development will be a ‘net benefit’ for climate. Second, they claim demand response for data centres enables renewable growth. And third, they herald energy efficiency as progress on sustainability. We debunk all three claims as misleading. NVIDIA recently announced exclusive supply to an Ohio data centre in the US reportedly set to be powered by what would be one of the world’s biggest gas plants. This is an illustration that the company is projected to accelerate the global climate crisis through its enablement of the fossil-fuelled AI boom.

[3] According to Greenpeace East Asia’s research, titled “Nvidia’s Green Illusion”, NVIDIA shifts its environmental footprint onto East Asian key suppliers reliant on fossil fuels without directly investing in local renewable energy infrastructure.

[4] This NVIDIA press release marking its Q2 FY27 financial results demonstrates that the data center segment, driven entirely by demand for generative AI hardware, accounts for 92.5% of its revenue.

[5] Based on a United Nations University study, this UN News article reveals how the expansion of AI drives environmental injustice by saddling local communities and lower-income nations with severe ecological burdens—including water depletion, energy strain, land use, e-waste, and mining pollution—while its benefits remain heavily concentrated in a few wealthy nations.

Contacts:

Guillaumine Lickel, Deputy Communications Lead , Greenpeace International, +33 6-73-89-48-90 (EMEA), glickel@greenpeace.org

Madison Carter, National Press Secretary, Greenpeace USA, +1 703-554-4842 (Americas), mcarter@greenpeace.org

Yujie Xue, International Communications Officer, Greenpeace East Asia,(APAC) +852 51273416 (APAC), yujie.xue@greenpeace.org

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

NVIDIA markets artificial intelligence as a climate saviour, but new research by Greenpeace International and a consortium of civil society partners reveals a starkly different reality. Behind the tech giant’s sustainability messaging lies a staggering carbon footprint: NVIDIA’s indirect Scope 3 emissions have surged by 725% since 2020. Furthermore, undisclosed emissions from operating sold chips could add up to 21 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2025.

The briefing debunks three core greenwashing tactics used by NVIDIA: claiming AI yields a net climate benefit, promoting data center demand response as a renewable driver, and masking skyrocketing energy consumption behind efficiency gains. Far from driving a clean energy transition, NVIDIA hardware powers energy-hungry data centers, such as a proposed Ohio facility backed by one of the world’s largest gas plants.

Because NVIDIA relies on East Asian manufacturing supply chains heavily reliant on fossil fuels, it effectively offloads its ecological burden onto lower-income nations while concentrating AI wealth. This pattern reflects a system of tech colonialism that accelerates environmental injustice through energy strain, water depletion, and land degradation.

To address its climate impact, NVIDIA must stop relying on greenwashing illusions. Greenpeace demands that NVIDIA take direct responsibility by investing deeply in new renewable energy global capacity and expanding its 100% renewable energy target across its entire manufacturing supply chain by 2030.

Download the report:

NVIDIA’s AI climate hoax: New analysis on NVIDIA’s rising emissions and greenwashing

About the author

Ketan Joshi is an analyst, writer and communicator specialising in clean energy, corporate accountability and climate advocacy. He has worked with government renewable energy agencies, research bodies including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, and is the author of Windfall: unlocking a fossil free future. He was lead author on The AI Climate Hoax (2026) and Energy Vampires (2026, Greenpeace Australia Pacific).

Partner organisations

This research was published in collaboration with a coalition of climate, tech and accountability organisations: Kairos Fellowship, Stand.earth, Beyond Fossil Fuels, Friends of the Earth, Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), Green Screen Coalition and the Green Web Foundation.

From peaceful protest against new oil and gas extraction in the Black Sea, to youth activists in Kenya, to calls for ocean protection in American Samoa. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Bulgaria – With a peaceful protest in Bulgarian waters, Greenpeace warns against plans for new oil and gas extraction in the vulnerable Black Sea. Activists on kayaks revealed a giant banner bearing the message “GAS IS A SCAM” off the Bulgarian Black Sea coast – accompanied by the iconic Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise.

The demonstration comes against the backdrop of an upcoming oil and gas exploration project in the Khan Tervel block in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone. It serves as a powerful reminder on the real dangers of gas exploration projects: fueling the climate crisis, fossil fuel lock-in and endangering marine life such as dolphins, and calls out those who solely profit – big international corporations such as Shell and OMV-Petrom.

Kenya – A celebration marking the launch of a new phase of the Ubunifu Hub Youth Program, supported by the Greenpeace Environmental Foundation. The event brought together young people, partners and stakeholders to celebrate the program and showcase opportunities for young people to learn, create, connect and take action.

American Samoa – Activists from Finafinau, Greenpeace USA and the broader American Samoan public, met the NOAA ship Okeanos Explorer in Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa, during the ship’s expedition to the US territory to map and quantify deep sea minerals. They displayed banners reading “Don’t Mine the Moana”, “Stop Deep Sea Mining” and “Protect the Pacific” as the ship engaged in crew change operations just offshore.

The activists were concerned with the research vessel’s current expedition to map and quantify deep sea minerals. Waters offshore the US territory are currently subject to a US Interior Department Marine Minerals Administration proposed lease sale of approximately 31.4 million acres (or roughly 48,000–50,000+ square miles) for commercial deep sea mining. At the time of the demonstration, the lease sale was scheduled for November 19, 2026 and if sold would be the first lease of its kind in US domestic waters and could potentially become the site of the world’s first commercial deep sea mining operation.

Indonesia – Rooftop solar panels are being installed in the Kampung Muka area of North Jakarta through a collaboration between Greenpeace Indonesia, Jaringan Rakyat Miskin Kota (JRMK) and Urban Poor Consortium (UPC). This community-scale rooftop solar installation is part of efforts to accelerate the energy transition in Indonesia to renewable energy and expand clean power access in urban neighbourhoods

Germany – Greenpeace groups across Germany draw attention to the pollution of rivers, lakes and drinking water caused by over-fertilisation at a group action day, in Aachen. At a symbolic drink station featuring a wheel of fortune, they provided information about nitrate pollution in water. The activists also called on people to use the test kits provided to check private wells, streams and rivers for nitrate levels over the coming months. To kick off the so-called ‘crowd research’ initiative, activists demonstrated the water tests on site and explain the procedures.

Cameroon – Fifteen volunteers from Yaoundé took part in an ecological march alongside the CNEDD association to raise awareness and collect plastic waste. After the march, the participants debated the topic of plastic.

Palau – As world leaders meet at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in Koror, Palau, Civil Society Organisations are calling for Pacific priorities of climate and oceans to remain at the heart of negotiations. Keeping 1.5C is not just a legal and moral obligation, but an obligation under the International Court of Justice.

Netherlands – Greenpeace Netherlands files an enforcement request against chemical company Chemours over illegal PFAS discharges. PFAS is accumulating in the environment and public health, found in everything from eggs to breast milk. Because the company is now attempting to legalise the toxic substance TFA through new permits and the government fails to intervene, Greenpeace is taking action with the environmental authority and the courts.

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

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

What connects a fishing community in Thailand, Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon, women fish processors in Senegal and Sámi youth in northern Finland? They live thousands of kilometres apart, in very different landscapes and cultures. The pressures on their territories are different too: industrial agriculture and infrastructure, oil development, industrial fishing, pollution and climate change.

Yet, if you look across these places, a shared story begins to emerge. While lands and waters that have sustained communities for generations are being polluted by corporations in the name of profit – often with little regard for the people whose lives are rooted in them – communities in those same territories are standing their ground. They are defending their rights, resisting destructive projects and drawing on generations of knowledge and their own ways of governing and caring for the places they call home – and that we all depend on.

The threats take many forms, and so does the resistance. But at the heart of these stories is a common thread: the determination to keep nature, culture and ways of life thriving together, as they have for generations.

To celebrate this resistance, we have brought together images of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from around the world. Taken through the years and across continents, they capture stories and moments that continue to resonate today, and the people behind them. They highlight something too often missing from global conversations about biodiversity: protecting lands and waters cannot be separated from the rights, knowledge and ways of life of the people whose lives are rooted in them.

From October 19th to 30th, governments will gather in Yerevan, Armenia, for CBD COP17, the UN Biodiversity Conference.  This will mark the first global review of how countries are implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the landmark agreement adopted in 2022 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. It will be a critical assessment of whether commitments made on paper are translating into meaningful action on the ground.

For Indigenous Peoples and local communities, what happens next matters. COP17 is an opportunity for governments to advance the recognition of Indigenous and Traditional Territories as a key part of achieving the global 30×30 conservation target, ensure that conservation respects rights and community choices, and make biodiversity finance directly accessible to communities so they can strengthen solutions on their own terms.

Jaqueline Sordi is Comms Specialist for Greenpeace International

Defend the defenders

Demand the recognition of Indigenous rights and their territories.

Join now

Amsterdam – Concerted and extensive action to transition away from fossil fuels and end forest destruction must become the driving force of government policy in response to the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) warning that the global temperature rise will exceed 1.5°C, likely within the next few years.

The new UNEP report represents the first United Nations (UN) report describing a 1.5°C “overshoot, peak and decline” pathway and comes amid a year of worsening heatwaves, wildfires and a strengthening ‘super’ El Niño that have already heightened alarm about the pace of climate change. Confirmation of a looming 1.5°C overshoot is the latest reminder of the need for a robust multilateral response to match the mounting scale of the climate threat.[1]   

At this year’s UN General Assembly and the UN climate talks COP31, world leaders must raise the bar on climate action. Greenpeace is also urging the Santa Marta ‘coalition of doers’ to spearhead ambitious national action at home and, in a turbulent geopolitical space, drive concrete progress towards a just transition away from fossil fuels.[2][3]

Jasper Inventor, Deputy Programme Director at Greenpeace International, said: “This is news none of us wanted to hear, but overshoot is not the reason to give up and surrender 1.5°C. It’s a  heartbreaking moment, and we need to reflect on that, but every fraction of a degree still matters and the UNEP report must now serve as a defining call to action.

“The 1.5°C goal is not only a legal, political and moral threshold – it’s our lifeline and what we do today and tomorrow will determine our fate. Governments must accelerate a fast, fair and funded just transition into renewable energy, ensure we end and reverse forest destruction by 2030 and hold fossil fuel polluters and forest destroyers to account. To help finance climate action, we must also make polluters pay for climate damages.”

The UNEP said although an overshoot of 1.5°C will happen, the extent and duration of it can still be limited through an “overshoot, peak and decline” pathway. However, it reaffirmed that risks and impacts will intensify with every fraction of a degree and time spent above the 1.5°C threshold. Its best-case scenario has a peak temperature rise of 1.8°C if we collectively meet and exceed existing climate commitments. 1.8°C will already carry significant risks, however, including the potential for irreversible tipping points to global systems to be reached. 

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is a non-negotiable survival line for humanity. It is enshrined in law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in an Advisory Opinion – and backed by a UN General Assembly resolution. The ICJ confirmed 1.5°C was the legal obligation for all states and found that high carbon-emitting countries carry a historical responsibility to act fastest and hardest to protect the most vulnerable communities. 

Some of the communities already experiencing the worst of climate impacts live in the Pacific region. The release of the UNEP report coincided with the Pacific Island Forum in Palau, where Pacific island states are meeting to build regional momentum toward COP31 and a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.[4]

Moemoana Schwenke, Pacific Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said from Palau: “For the Pacific, 1.5°C is not an ambition, it is a survival line. It is a matter of justice, sovereignty and our right to determine our own futures in our Pacific way. We inherit our lands, oceans and cultures as an entrusted responsibility, not a commodity to be exhausted. 

“The International Court of Justice has already been clear that 1.5°C is a legally binding obligation, not just a choice. Pacific communities, for decades, have been clear that our ways of life, homes and livelihoods are under threat from climate disasters and impacts. An overshoot is not compatible with Pacific wellbeing.

“The court and governments must translate responsibility into action: a rapid, just and legally grounded transition away from fossil fuels with no further expansion of coal, oil and gas.”

Dr Jerry Jose, Senior Scientist at the Greenpeace International Science Unit said: “Among the many stark warnings, the UNEP report presents the intergenerational burden climate change will impose on future communities in an overshoot scenario. The risks of permanent change escalate as our climate warms. In addition, the multiple decades needed for a decline in the global temperature back to 1.5°C would exacerbate already uneven impacts, many of which having the potential to continue well beyond stabilisation.

“Deep and sustained mitigation in the near-term is essential to limit the peak and duration of the overshoot we are leaving our future generations. Even a decline of temperature is ‘not a given’ and depends on decisions and actions taken today. This raises profound questions about intergenerational responsibility and must compel us to act now.”

ENDS

Notes:

[1] UNEP report: Limiting Overshoot 

[2] Media statement: Santa Marta conference to end fossil fuels a landmark moment for climate and energy stability

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

[4] Media statement: Pacific Islands Forum leaders, Albanese must not lose focus on Pacific priorities of climate and ocean

Contacts:

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

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

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned us that the global temperature will rise above 1.5°C, likely within the next few years, to levels that will worsen extreme weather impacts and intensify the risks of climate change. This is why Greenpeace is demanding that governments urgently respond by rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels and ending forest destruction to minimise the threat.

Despite this temporary overshoot, the global agreed commitment remains limiting warming to 1.5°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement and upheld by the International Court of Justice and adopted at the UN General Assembly. 

The UNEP’s new report ‘Limiting Overshoot’ outlines a pathway called “overshoot, peak and decline” to minimise and adapt to the impacts of an exceedance and an eventual return to 1.5°C. But even in the best case scenario where governments fully implement and exceed their current and future climate action plans, the UNEP states that our temperature rise will still hit 1.8°C before declining. 

The UNEP stresses there are “no good outcomes if we remain above 1.5°C” and that we must focus on making the overshoot as small and short as possible. This will be determined by decisions taken today – rapid climate action across all sectors is “both necessary and feasible” to hold warming as close as possible to 1.5°C by 2100. 

What does an overshoot of 1.5°C actually mean?

In 2015, at the UN climate conference COP21 in Paris, close to 200 governments committed to efforts aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5°C and well within 2°C by 2100.

While the average global temperatures rose above that target for the first time in 2024 – hitting 1.6°C above the pre-industrial period – this did not signify a long-term breach of the 1.5°C limit. One year is only a single indicator and what matters is the long-term trend – measured as a temperature increase over decades, not individual months or years. 

The term ‘overshoot’, however, is increasingly being used to describe future temperature trends that temporarily exceed 1.5°C and are followed by future declines. Overshoot, peak and decline pathways are part of the new set of global emissions scenarios which will provide the basis for upcoming climate research reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s climate science panel.

What does the UNEP report say about avoiding a 1.5°C overshoot?  

The UNEP said global action to cut greenhouse gas emissions had been too slow to stop temperatures rising more than 1.5°C in “the next few years”. 

In terms of the planetary carbon budget, only about 130 Gt of additional CO₂ can be emitted from 2026 onwards to have even a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. To stay within this budget, CO₂ emissions would need to decline steadily from 2025 levels to zero in just over six years, leaving us with a huge emissions gap between current levels and what is needed. 

So, after decades of “insufficient action”, the UNEP outlined three challenges to limiting temperature overshoot:

• Reducing emissions and addressing impacts
• Limiting peak warming and managing climate risks
• Sustaining the decline in temperatures and scaling up adaptation efforts

The UNEP called for a global response that includes the three interconnected phases. An immediate response for slowing temperature rise, involving deep emission cuts and urgent measures to protect vulnerable populations. Secondly, a coping and containment phase to boost climate resilience needs, followed by a third phase that focuses on building long-term resilience with net-negative emissions.

What’s required, it added, was multilateral cooperation, climate finance and effective implementation of government policies to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and to expand renewable energies, cut methane pollution and protect land, forest and oceans.

What are the consequences of a 1.5°C overshoot?

The UNEP said that by delaying action we might lose the chance to return to 1.5°C and “face an unprecedented, damaged world”. The impacts of a 1.5°C overshoot would be wide and varied, affecting ecosystems, human systems and economic systems.

The repeated heatwaves and wildfires among the so-called natural disasters in 2026 are also the types of impacts we’ve been warned about. A potential world of 1.5°C overshoot will see these types of disasters become more likely and potentially more severe in years to come.

Cryosphere impacts such as Arctic sea ice and habitat loss, glacial loss, permafrost thaw and degradation will be on the frontline and these impacts will affect ecosystems and downstream communities dependent on seasonal melt water.

Loss of biodiversity in marine and terrestrial fronts from land use change and ocean acidification will trickle down to human health, food and water security as cities and infrastructure come under “increasing strain” from extreme events and other impacts.

The UNEP also warned that some Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and low-lying coastal cities could become partially or completely submerged due to sea level rise. This could put continuity of their statehood itself in question.

All of these, among others, will mean that societies have to adjust constantly, raising issues of justice, power, and political legitimacy.

How close are we to the 1.5°C overshoot threshold?

While the WMO has warned it’s very likely the global temperature will temporarily exceed 1.5°C for at least one year between 2026 and 2030, it has also said that it’s likely the 2026-2030 five-year average will exceed 1.5°C.

Now, the UNEP said human-induced global warming is nearing 1.4°C, and global temperatures have been increasing at about 0.25°C per decade (with some recent studies showing an even faster rate). 

As per the IPCC, every five years of high emissions adds 0.1°C to peak warming. Based on these trends, global warming could reach 1.5°C within a few years – around the end of this decade.

Will 1.5°C overshoot trigger irreversible tipping points?

There is a chance some impacts from a 1.5°C overshoot will be irreversible even if global temperatures eventually decline. The risk of tipping points increases the higher global temperatures reach, and the longer we stay above 1.5°C so it’s important to restrict this rise as much as possible.

Irreversible changes include the potential destabilisation (i.e. melting and collapse) of the major West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and degradation of the Amazon rainforest, and disruption of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) – the system of ocean currents which help regulate the climate by moving warm surface water north and cold deep water south.

These are changes that “would reshape the world forever” and may emerge abruptly or accumulate over time, the UNEP warned. A fall in global temperature may also co-exist, for example, with a continuation of impacts – continued sea level rise, ocean warming, cryosphere losses and regional changes in rainfall, drought and weather extremes.

Placing equity and justice at the core of the global response to climate change

The UNEP report strongly recognised that equity and justice must be a central element of strategies to protect vulnerable people from climate change and to create a just transition for communities and workforces as part of efforts aimed at securing a liveable future for all.

Ultimately, developed countries have an historical responsibility and capability to act the “hardest and fastest”. They must ensure that a just transition away from fossil fuels allows all communities to access the benefits of renewable energy and that no one is disadvantaged through the transition. 

As Greenpeace International explains in its policy briefing, a just transition is more than simply swapping coal, oil and gas for renewables. It is an opportunity to transform energy, transport, industrial and other systems so they are more secure and affordable, reduce inequality, protect ecosystems and shift power from elites and multi-billion-dollar corporations to people.

What climate mitigation actions need to take place, and how important is adaptation?

While the UNEP report emphasised an urgent need for climate action to limit the overshoot, it recognised that impacts are unavoidable and that a combination of mitigation (climate action) and adaptation will be needed. 

Mitigation and adaptation are “fundamentally interconnected”, the UNEP said, adding that mitigation will determine the scale and duration of future climate risks, and adaptation remains essential because impacts are already happening and additional warming is unavoidable.

Mitigation determines the journey and the destination, and adaptation determines who gets there. There should be commitments on finance, durable solidarity and inclusive governance built well before peak warming, rather than waiting to be improvised under crisis conditions.

If we overshoot 1.5°C, how can we get back to that limit? 

Net-zero – where CO₂ emissions are balanced by CO₂ removals –  is required to halt warming, along with deep reductions in methane and other short lived climate pollutants. It is essential that early climate action is taken to limit the peak temperature rise because the higher the temperature rises, the greater amount of CO₂ needs to be removed from the atmosphere.

Deep cuts in methane are also vital because it contributes about 0.5°C of current global warming. While the UNEP said there are challenges in tackling methane emissions, it’s clear we cannot cool the planet while industrial livestock production continues to expand unchecked, driving superheating methane emissions, deforestation, drinking water pollution, and extinction.

According to the UNEP’s analysis, some level of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will also be necessary. However, most CDR strategies remain highly uncertain when it comes to effectiveness, scalability, permanence, durability, potential adverse impacts and social acceptability. 

What needs to be done now to avoid or limit a 1.5°C overshoot?

On the road to the UN General Assembly in September and the UN climate conference COP31 in November, governments must acknowledge this report and signal their intent to accelerate a just transition. The 1.5°C limit is a legal, political and moral obligation, and what matters now is what we do today and tomorrow because every fraction of a degree matters. 

Essential actions to take now are:

• Immediate and profound emissions cuts as part of a Just Transition away from fossil fuels are urgently needed, 
• Protecting the oceans and forest 
• Protecting  the most vulnerable and those least responsible for climate change 

A stable climate in the future requires change today!

Jasper Inventor is Deputy Programme Director at Greenpeace International.
Dr. Jerry Jose is Senior Scientist at the Greenpeace International Science Unit (University of Exeter, UK).