Manila – A study by World Weather Attribution found that climate change made November’s typhoon series in the Philippines nearly twice as likely and increased the likelihood of at least three Category 3-5 typhoons hitting the Philippines in a year by 25%.

Reacting to this, Jefferson Chua, Greenpeace Southeast Asia climate campaigner said:

“Scientists are quick to conclude what policymakers are too slow at acting on: killer typhoons are made worse by climate polluters like Shell, Total and other oil and gas firms. Big Oil made 13 million Filipinos anguish in an unprecedented series of six typhoons within just 30 days. To help reduce the impacts of another conveyer belt of typhoons, the Philippine government must maximize its role as host of the UN climate loss and damage fund and find a way to make developed countries pay for the damage they have done as well as compel oil and gas companies to stop drilling and start paying.” 

The report highlights that climate change – caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels –  will result in more intense and unpredictable extreme weather events such as typhoons and heatwaves in the Philippines. In light of the series of cyclones and significant loss of life, the study recommends preparing for more back-to-back events in the future. It considered tropical cyclones Trami, super-typhoons Kong Rey and Usagi, typhoons Xinying and Toraji, with costs estimated at half a billion US$ – from damages to public infrastructure and agriculture. This does not include other costs such as loss of working days, destroyed homes, appliances and cars – are borne largely by ordinary people.

The study’s release comes just days after Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra delivered the Philippines’ statement at the hearings for the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion  (ICJAO) on climate change  in The Hague, Netherlands. Guevara called for the World Court and the international community to adopt an environmental legal remedy to assist climate-vulnerable nations, emphasizing that states must ensure that activities in their territory cause no harm to other states, and that they regulate public and private entities in their jurisdiction to ensure this. He also stressed that when wrongful acts are committed, states are obligated to provide full reparations. 

In a parallel event in The Hague, community representatives from the Philippines, Pacific Islands, and other countries launched The People’s Museum of Climate Justice, exhibiting “objects of memory,” poetry, and artwork from climate impacts survivors worldwide. The initiative aims to amplify stories of hope and courage from communities in global climate discussions. 

Tony Abletes, a youth leader from Salcedo, Eastern Samar, Philippines – an area frequently battered by typhoons – said: 

“The climate crisis is most felt in our communities, and these consequences stem from actions we had little to do with. We’ve brought our stories here in The Hague because they must be central to climate discussions, along with our urgent call for states to make polluters pay for loss and damage.”

Making climate polluters pay is the most popular policy option among Filipinos, according to a study commissioned by Greenpeace International for the “Stop Drilling Start Paying” global campaign. Greenpeace Philippines is calling on governments to make oil and gas companies stop expanding, resist their intimidation, and force them to pay for the climate damages already felt by people worldwide, especially the most at risk of climate impacts.

ENDS

Contacts:

Johanna Fernandez, Communications and Digital Manager, Greenpeace Philippines, +63-920-9759844, jofernan@greenpeace.org

Cabo Pulmo is an underwater paradise. The national park, on the east coast of Mexico’s Baja California Peninsula, is home to one of the world’s most important coral reefs that provide refuge to iconic marine species, like whale sharks, manta rays, and sea turtles. 

A history of action for Cabo Pulmo 

Cabo Pulmo is an incredible example of marine conservation in action. It became a National Park in 1995, after many years of campaigning from local communities, who fought to protect the area against overfishing and irresponsible tourism. Since then, fish populations have increased by more than 400% and many of its notable species, like whale sharks, have returned.

Unfortunately, this UNESCO World Heritage Site is now once again in the crosshairs of greedy corporations that want to exploit the area’s natural marine and terrestrial beauty for profit. Over the years, several real estate and tourism companies have tried but failed. 

Back in 2008, Hansa Urbana tried to develop a new tourist complex, Cabo Cortés, in an area bordering Cabo Pulmo. The project’s wastewater discharge, as well as oil from tourist boats, and the high demand for drinking water, to name a few issues, would have had a devastating impact on the reef and its marine life.

Local communities worked tirelessly alongside organisations, including Greenpeace Mexico, to pressure the government to cancel Cabo Cortés. Over 220,000 citizens signed the Greenpeace petition to stop this destructive project. Finally, in 2012, Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s government listened to the voices of the people and cancelled the plans. This momentous victory demonstrates the impact of people power in defending ocean sanctuaries.

Corporate greed is once again threatening to destroy Cabo Pulmo and its abundance of biodiversity. Two new projects, La Abundancia and Baja Bay Club, want to transform nearly 700 hectares of land surrounding Cabo Pulmo into enormous hotels, golf courses, villas, beach clubs, shopping centres, and a desalination plant.

In the last days of outgoing Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration, the local representation of the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) approved both projects. SAMARNAT fully ignored the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas’ (CONANP) warnings that these projects are incompatible with the conservation of the Cabo Pulmo National Park.

So what’s at stake? 

If these projects move forward, the consequences will be devastating for Cabo Pulmo’s marine ecosystems and local communities:

• The habitat of unique marine and terrestrial species will be destroyed.
• Water and soil will be polluted, putting the health of the reef and the biodiversity of the area at risk.
• Local water resources will be impacted, affecting local communities and the biodiversity that depend on them.
• Mexico’s carbon footprint will be increased by the projects, contradicting the country’s environmental commitments.
• Biodiversity loss will increase due to the destruction of the unique habitat in the Punta Arena area, putting endangered marine species, like coastal birds and nesting sea turtles at risk. 

Ocean sanctuaries, like Cabo Pulmo, are specifically successful at protecting biodiversity, ensuring ecosystem recovery and benefiting local communities. We need to protect at least 30% of the oceans from destructive human activities, like overfishing and exploitative tourism, with a network of marine sanctuaries. This will be a great step towards the recovery of ocean ecosystems and for the well-being and balance of our entire planet.

Greenpeace Mexico in coalition with local and national organisations are demanding that SEMARNAT revoke these projects’ authorisations to protect the invaluable National Park from real estate and tourist exploitation that threatens its existence. CEMDA has already taken legal action, requesting SEMARNAT review both projects’ authorisation.

What you can do 

People power protected Cabo Pulmo once, and together we can do it again. Raise your voice to protect Cabo Pulmo by signing the petition https://act.gp/3UR2UcG 

Amsterdam – Greenpeace salutes the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Nihon Hidankyo, for their decades-long leadership in the struggle to eliminate nuclear weapons and expose its catastrophic consequences. Under the motto ‘No More Hibakusha,’ Nihon Hidankyo has been on a lifelong mission for peace, playing a pivotal role in making nuclear weapons illegal under international law through the historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), that entered into force in 2021.

Turning their personal tragedy into a fight for the greater good, Nihon Hidankyo has tirelessly worked to promote the rights of all Hibakusha, both inside and outside Japan. The Hibakusha (Japanese for ‘bomb-affected people’) are survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as victims of nuclear bomb testing conducted around the world. For many, for example victims of nuclear testing in the Pacific, justice has been painstakingly slow and incomplete.

Nuclear weapons were designed and tested as ultimate doomsday devices, leaving behind a legacy of fear and destruction. No other human invention has had such a profound impact on humanity’s story. Like the trauma the weapons inflict, its effects cannot be fully erased or undone. Especially today, as the testing and potential use of nuclear weapons is no longer considered taboo and is once again being contemplated, we must stand in solidarity with the Hibakusha and carry their legacy forward. We call on all countries to sign and ratify the TPNW, striving to make it as universal as possible.

Greenpeace stands with the Hibakusha in fighting for nuclear justice, and for enacting a global effective ban against nuclear weapons, through the Nuclear Ban treaty. 

ENDS 

Contacts:

Jen Maman, Senior Peace Advisor, Greenpeace International, +49 152 52024678, jen.maman@greenpeace.org

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

Just over a year ago, Shell sued Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace International and nine individuals for millions over a completely peaceful protest. We showed them their bully tactics won’t intimidate us – and now they’ve backed down and settled out of court. 

And we’ve made sure none of our supporters’ money will go to Shell. Here’s what you need to know.

Why did Shell sue Greenpeace?

Last year, six Greenpeace activists boarded a Shell-contracted ship in the Atlantic carrying a key piece of equipment to drill for new oil in the North Sea. 

When the protest ended, the only damage Shell could find was a padlock which, they alleged, our activists broke. That’s it. Yet they came after us with a million-dollar lawsuit, which they justified for their spending on safety. 

They demanded $1m USD in damages – and planned to spend another $10m USD in legal fees, which we could have had to pay if we lost the case.

For a company that made £22.4 billion in profits last year alone, this is peanuts. For Greenpeace International, this would have been one of the biggest threats in our 45-year history. 

But for Shell, this was never about the money. The real reasons behind their suit were revealed when, during early negotiations, the company offered to withdraw the case if we promised never to take action against their rigs, at port and at sea – forever. The mask slipped. This was a textbook SLAPP suit – a bullying legal tactic designed to intimidate critics.

How Greenpeace fought back – and created a PR disaster for Shell

Thanks to our incredible supporters, Shell backed down from their unreasonable demands. A sustained, year-long campaign against the suit, supported by celebrities including Joe Lycett, Stephen Fry and Emma Thompson, turned the legal move into a PR embarrassment for Shell. The case was dubbed the ‘Cousin Greg’ lawsuit by Forbes after a scene in the Emmy-awarded drama Succession, in which the hapless character threatens to sue Greenpeace to universal dismay.

How was the case settled?

As part of the settlement, none of the money supporters donated to the Shell legal fund will go to Shell. Instead, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK have agreed to donate £300,000 to our brave friends at the UK Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) whose mission to save lives at sea has become even more important as climate change supercharges storms and floods around the world. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Greenpeace UK (@greenpeaceuk)

We have also agreed not to protest at three of Shell’s oil and gas fields for the next five years and at a fourth one for the next ten years, all of them in the North Sea. These are largely declining fields where Shell has been drilling for years and where we had no plans to intervene by direct action.  

Even so, we don’t like having to make this kind of concession to a fossil fuel company, but the alternative could have been much worse. 

This is the absurd nature of SLAPP suits: even if the Greenpeace defendants had gone on to win the case, we could still have ended up worse off than by settling the case at this early stage.

This settlement has no impact on our future campaign plans and allows us to continue to vociferously campaign against Big Oil, to demand that it stops drilling and starts paying for all the harm their business has caused.

What happens next?

Thanks to the thousands of generous, passionate supporters who have donated to Greenpeace UK’s Shell legal fund, there are now even more resources to ramp up the fight against the fossil fuel industry. 

And while this legal battle might be over, Big Oil’s dirty tricks aren’t going away. Greenpeace faces further legal battles around the world, including a lawsuit in North Dakota for over $300 million USD which threatens the very existence of Greenpeace in the US. 

But we’ve never been ones to run from a fight – and we don’t intend to start now. With our supporters behind us, we will ramp up our campaigning until the fossil fuel industry stops drilling and starts paying for the damage it is causing to people and planet.

Who pays for the damage from extreme weather?

It’s time to make the polluters pay. Sign now to hold the oil and gas corporations accountable, and support a safe and fair future for all.

Add your name