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 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 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 focusing 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 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).

Amid crashing waves, birdsong, and the breeze, dozens of Indigenous Peoples gathered, sitting on senats – traditional mats distinct to the Raja Ampat archipelago in West Papua, Indonesia. They attended a three-day gathering starting on 20 August 2026 called Heyul Pelei Koranu Fyak (The Grand Assembly of Raja Ampat Indigenous Communities), which brought together Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the archipelago and other parts of Papua and Indonesia, and also welcomed Indigenous representatives from the Amazon, Africa, and Malaysia.

The gathering, supported by Greenpeace Indonesia and the local NGO Institut USBA, aimed to strengthen solidarity in protecting Indigenous lands, waters, and biodiversity.

Indigenous Peoples around the world are facing escalating pressure from extractive industries. Despite the public outcry through the #SaveRajaAmpat campaign last year, the area known as ‘the last paradise on Earth ’ is still under threat from nickel mining. Raja Ampat is located in the Coral Triangle and is home to 75% of the world’s coral. Meanwhile in the Amazon, thousands of hectares of rainforest in the Indigenous territories are being destroyed by illegal gold mining. 

Indigenous Peoples are resisting the destruction and maintain a deep, intergenerational connection to their lands, forests, oceans, and ecosystems. Their knowledge and relationship with nature demonstrate that ecosystems are most resilient when local peoples who depend on them have the power to defend and manage their territories. In Raja Ampat, for instance, Indigenous communities practice sasi, a temporary prohibition on harvesting specific natural resources within a designated area of land or sea to allow ecosystems to naturally rest, recover, and regenerate.

“There is the tradition of creating an ecological calendar; there is a taboo that requires us to speak in local language upon visiting certain places; also there is a myth for not catching big fish. They are all our ancestors’ way to preserve nature. We have to protect our cultural diversity as it also safeguards Raja Ampat biodiversity,” said George Mentasan, a Papuan anthropologist who spoke at the gathering.

Panh O Kayapo, an Indigenous Kayapo woman from the Amazon, said that Indigenous women hold a significant role in protecting biodiversity. She went on to say that Indigenous communities must not give in to the colonial extractivist forces exploiting their territories. She said, “We are the Indigenous women who protect not only our children, but also our biome. I speak up about women’s role not only for our generation, but also for generations to come, for them to have a better future.”

After three days of exchanging stories, knowledge, and struggles, the gathering resulted in the Arborek Declaration. The document calls on governments to recognise that Indigenous’ knowledge and way of life are the solutions for halting biodiversity loss and the climate crisis. It also reflects the Indigenous communities’ commitment to strengthen global solidarity in their fight defending their territories.

The Arborek Declaration also carries out important calls as governments prepare to review progress on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at CBD COP17. Greenpeace is calling for Indigenous and traditional territories to be fully recognised as a key part of achieving the global goal to protect at least 30% of land and oceans by 2030.

Protecting nature must not come at the expense of the people who have cared for these territories for generations. Governments must ensure that conservation respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including their right to decide how their territories are protected and managed through Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Syahrul Fitra, Greenpeace’s Co-lead of Global Forest Solutions project said, “Indigenous and Traditional Territories must be recognised on their own terms, rather than communities being forced into conservation models that do not reflect their rights, governance systems, or choices. Governments must also ensure direct access to biodiversity finance, so Indigenous Peoples and local communities have the resources to strengthen their own systems of protection and governance.”

Budiarti Putri is a Communications Campaigner for Greenpeace Indonesia

Notes:
Photos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library

Defend earth defenders

Ask political leaders to act on their promises to stop ocean and forest destruction.

Join now

For a long time, the answer seemed pretty simple. Being rich meant having money. Lots of it. Enough to live extravagantly, buy whatever you want and never really have to worry about the cost. But over the last few years, the conversation around wealth has become a lot more complicated.

It has become harder and harder to ignore just how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, particularly at a time when the cost of living is rising, inequality is growing and governments are struggling to find the money needed to respond to the climate crisis.

And extreme wealth does not exist in a bubble. The way money is accumulated, taxed and distributed has a very real impact on the societies we live in and the planet we all depend on.

That is where Fair Share for People and Planet – a Greenpeace campaign to fight for fair global tax rules – comes in.

Why the world needs fair taxation

In 2025, we asked people around the world to join us in calling for fairer global tax rules and a future where everyone can live safely, securely and with dignity on a liveable planet.

Put simply, we’re asking governments around the world to make the super rich pay their fair share. The money for fighting the climate crisis is there, it’s just in the wrong hands. By setting up new global tax rules, we can change a currently pretty unfair game for the better.

And now we have reached a pretty big milestone.

200,000 people have added their names to our Tax the Super Rich petition.

Climate action needs money. So does healthcare. Education. Public transport. Disaster response. Sustainable housing. Clean water. Stronger public services.

The list goes on.

But the world is not simply short of money. Huge amounts of wealth already exist. The problem is that too much of it is concentrated at the very top, while governments do not always have the political or fiscal tools needed to direct those resources towards the things our societies urgently need. And in some places, the problem is deepened by corruption too, meaning people cannot rely on governments to manage resources fairly or transparently.

That is one of the central ideas behind our Fair Share campaign: there is enough money to fund climate and nature action, but too much of it is concentrated in the hands of the super-rich. Fairer taxation can help redirect more of that wealth towards people, the planet and essential public services.

This is why Greenpeace is talking about tax. Climate justice and economic justice are deeply connected.

When a flood destroys homes, when a drought threatens food supplies, when extreme heat puts lives at risk or when the cost of basic necessities rises, the impact is not felt equally.

Who has savings? Who has insurance? Who can relocate? Who has access to healthcare? Who gets support when things go wrong?

These are climate questions, but they are also economic ones.

What will fair taxation on extreme wealth achieve?

At its heart, Fair Share is about something pretty simple: creating fairer tax systems where those with the greatest wealth contribute more towards the functioning societies we all depend on.

It is about making sure our tax systems reflect people’s ability to contribute, and making sure governments have the resources they need to invest in a safer and more secure future.

The campaign is also part of a much bigger global effort to change the rules themselves.

Greenpeace and allies around the world are pushing for an ambitious UN Global Tax Treaty, including stronger measures for taxing high-net-worth individuals and multinational corporations. The bigger goal is to build the public pressure and political leadership needed to unlock more public money for a fast, fair and people-focused transition.

Because fair taxation is not just a nice idea. It is a practical solution.

It can help fund climate action, public services, debt relief and stronger communities, while moving us away from the idea that philanthropy or voluntary generosity can somehow replace functioning and fair tax systems.

What has the Fair Share campaign to tax the super rich achieved so far?

Over the past year, this conversation has moved from policy spaces into streets, cities, social media feeds and everyday conversations around the world.

In Venice, a Greenpeace action calling for Jeff Bezos to pay more tax became part of a much wider conversation around extreme wealth. Social media videos featuring footage of the action received more than 35 million views, while the protest received widespread international media attention.

In Johannesburg, Greenpeace Africa took the call to Tax the Super Rich directly to the G20 in 2025.

We have also been testing how people actually respond to conversations about tax.

Across six African countries, some of the most convincing messages were based on a very simple principle: people with more wealth should contribute more according to their ability.

Other strong messages focused on how fair taxation can help countries fund development, and how greater tax contributions from billionaires and large corporations can help improve things like schools, hospitals and roads.

People power works

That number matters because of what it represents.

It is 200,000 people saying our economies can work differently.

It is 200,000 people asking governments to build fairer tax systems.

It is 200,000 people saying that those with the greatest ability to contribute should play their part in funding the societies we all rely on.

And it is 200,000 people joining a much wider movement asking what our economies are actually for, and who they are supposed to serve.

I am one of those 200,000 people.

So what does being rich actually mean?

And for me, this conversation has changed how I think about being “rich”.

The rose-tinted, dollar-sign glasses have slowly come off. Material wealth starts to feel a little less important when compared with the richness of human connection, safety and a healthy environment.

Being rich in life now means being able to breathe clean air and drink clean water. It means having food on the table. It means having people I love around me. It means being able to pursue my dreams and knowing that there are systems in place to support me when things go wrong.

It also means living on a planet where a flood, drought, wildfire or other climate disaster does not have the power to completely undo everything a person has worked for.

Because wealth is not only about how much money someone has.

It is also about security. It is about choices. It is about whether you can afford groceries, access healthcare or rebuild your life after a climate disaster.

What kind of future will we fund?

Creating a world where more people can experience that kind of richness requires investment.

That is why fair taxation matters.

Fairer taxes on extreme wealth could give governments more resources to invest in climate action, strengthen public services, help communities adapt to a changing climate and build societies where more people have the chance to live secure and fulfilling lives.

No amount of private wealth can create a separate planet. 

We all depend on the same air, the same water, functioning societies and a stable climate. And that is what makes the 200,000 milestone feel so important. It shows that more and more people want governments to act. It shows that fair taxation is no longer just a technical conversation happening behind closed doors. It is becoming part of a much bigger public conversation about fairness, justice and the kind of future we want to build.

And 200,000 people is not the end of that journey.

It is proof that the movement is growing.

Every person who adds their name strengthens the call for governments to create fairer global tax rules, tax extreme wealth more fairly and invest that money in the people and places that need it most.

Because being rich in life should not mean having more than you could ever use while that extreme wealth comes at the expense of the planet we all share.

It should mean living in a world where everyone has enough.

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

Tax the super-rich

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

Add your name