ARUSHA, Tanzania – Greenpeace Africa has submitted an amicus curiae brief before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), arguing that climate destruction is a systematic, ongoing violation of the rights of people across the African continent.

“This case is about justice for frontline communities already bearing the costs of a climate crisis they are least responsible for,” said Eugene Perumal, Governance and Legal Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “Across the continent, communities are already living with the consequences of decisions made without their consent. We are asking the Court to affirm that governments must protect people and to draw a hard line against this ongoing corporate impunity.” 

The submission situates the climate crisis within a broader pattern of extractive economic models imposed across Africa, from fossil fuel extraction to mining, deforestation and industrial agriculture. Greenpeace Africa argues that these industries threaten the rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment, and that governments have binding duties under the African Charter to prevent harm, ensure transparency and public participation, and provide remedies to affected communities.[1]

Greenpeace Africa argues that allowing multinational corporations to expand without meaningful environmental safeguards constitutes a fundamental failure of the State’s duty to protect the rights to life, health, and a satisfactory environment.

The submission also highlights the growing risk posed by industrial livestock expansion – a relatively new but rapidly emerging threat on the continent. Unlike traditional pastoralist and smallholder systems, industrial meat production concentrates environmental damage, drives deforestation, and shifts control of food systems away from local communities toward multinational corporations.

As part of this broader trend, the brief references the planned expansion of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, into Nigeria. The proposed US$2.5 billion investment in industrial meat processing illustrates how global agribusiness is seeking to establish a foothold in African markets, raising concerns about environmental impacts, lack of public consultation, and the long-term implications for local food systems and livelihoods.

Invoking Article 21(5) of the African Charter – which obliges States to “eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation, particularly that which is practised by international monopolies” –  the submission argues that the facilitation of extractive corporate expansion, without transparency, public participation, or environmental impact assessment, constitutes a direct failure of its duty to protect. 

The submission draws the landmark precedent of  SERAC v. Nigeria (2001), arising from Shell’s catastrophic oil operations in Ogoniland, which established that states have a positive duty to regulate corporations, conduct and publish impact assessments, and guarantee meaningful community participation before major industrial development proceeds. 

Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said:

“The projects being approved today will determine who controls our land, our food systems and the health of our planet in the future. We look to the Court for a powerful advisory opinion that cements the rights of African communities to say no to extractive agriculture, and sends a definitive message to corporate exploiters that their time for operating with impunity on this continent is over.”

ENDS

Notes:

[1] For a summary of what the African Court heard on Monday 30 March, see Greenpeace Africa release. For access to Greenpeace Africa’s Amicus Curiae submission to the African Court please contact Greenpeace Africa via the contact information below.

This proceeding is part of an unprecedented global quartet of parallel advisory proceedings before the world’s four highest international courts, expected to produce the most authoritative rulings on climate and human rights law in history.

Contacts:

Ferdinand Omondi, Communications and Story Manager at Greenpeace Africa, +254 722 505 233, fomondi@greenpeace.org 

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

Greenpeace Africa Press Desk: pressdesk.africa@greenpeace.org 

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

This past week, Greenpeace Spain and other Greenpeace offices around the world have been involved in a week of activities as part of the Global Housing Action Days project, an initiative aimed at drawing attention to the importance of safe, affordable, sustainable housing on a liveable planet. 

Here’s why this issue is so important.

A home is much more than a roof over our heads. Our homes are the bedrock upon which we build our sense of safety and stability, protect and care for our families and loved ones, and form communities around us. Beyond secure access to housing, secure tenure and basic services, homes must protect us from energy price shocks and energy poverty – and be part of the solution to the climate emergency. Poor energy efficiency in our homes and fossil fuel dependence for heating and cooking worsen both energy security, and the climate crisis.

1. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is essential to keep our planet habitable

To mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis, we must quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This means stopping the burning of gas, oil and coal – in short, all fossil fuels – and reducing energy demand through improved home insulation. The good news is that it is possible. We have plenty of solutions for improving energy efficiency in homes, the only thing missing is the political will to support and implement these solutions.

2. Homes can be part of the solution to the climate crisis

Many homes in Europe are still dependent on gas for cooking or heating – making buildings both a cause of the climate crisis and part of the solution. Moving our building stock away from dependency on gas means that, instead of being major emitters of greenhouse gases, buildings can get their energy from renewables and feed it into the grid. At the European level:

• Buildings consume 40% of all gas in Europe (much of it imported from countries like Russia, the US and other non-democratic countries that fuel wars).
• 33% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions come from homes, due to gas, oil and electricity used for heating, cooling and hot water.

3. Our homes are a public health issue

For example, in Spain, 20.8% of the population lives in energy poverty (defined as spending more than 10% of household income on energy bills), almost double the European rate of 10.6%. This means many people cannot adequately heat their homes in winter – due to high energy prices, poor thermal efficiency and limited incomes – nor can they adequately cool them in summer, when tens of thousands heat-related deaths occur in the EU each year.

4. Our current housing system continues to generate profits for polluters, tyrants and speculators

Energy prices have risen by an average of 66.3% in Europe between 2021 and 2025. While fossil fuel companies declare multi-million-dollar profits and their executives pocket eye-watering bonuses, Europe becomes increasingly dependent on a constant supply of expensive fossil fuels from abroad. This policy allows leaders like Putin or Trump to expand their energy domination, politically subjugate the EU and its countries through energy blackmail and fund their geopolitical games, including war. All of this while we keep wrecking the planet by burning gas.

Beyond that, our homes have become a financial asset for billionaires’ profits and massive touristification, putting demand and prices out of control and making access to housing an impossible dream for millions of people.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Greenpeace España (@greenpeace_esp)

5. There are solutions – and there is money

European governments should refurbish homes to create zero-emissions buildings that generate their own clean energy from renewables, such as heat pumps and shared photovoltaics with neighbours and the wider community, and prioritise vulnerable groups so that they reap the benefits of the transition.

A key step to make this a reality is to implement a fair tax on the super-rich and their real estate financial vehicles. This could unlock resources for a green future for all by funding the transition to sustainable heating and cooling in people’s homes.

For all these reasons, the housing, cost of living and climate crises are interlinked. We need large-scale home refurbishment to free us from gas and guarantee access to decent, affordable, sustainable and cosy housing for all.

We need policies that protect people, not the profits of polluters and speculators.

To protect people, the planet and peace, governments must break free from their reliance on fossil gas imports and ramp up efforts to support sustainable home refurbishment.

A fair and green future is within reach. We must stop letting billionaires profit from destruction and start making them pay for solutions.

Maria Prado is the Campaign Coordinator at Greenpeace Spain

Tax the Super Rich

Act now to call on the super-rich to pay their fair share

Act now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billionaire wealth is taken, not made

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

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

Tax inequalities: the billionaires vs the people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax the super-rich to protect people and the planet

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

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

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

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

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

It really can be that simple.  

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

Tax the super-rich

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

Add your name

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

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

More virgin plastic reduction: Yes, please. 

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

Swapping throwaway plastic sachets for paper: Just more trash.

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

Recycled plastic content: False solution.

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

Support for reuse initiatives: Show us the money. 

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

We need more information, and less industry rhetoric.

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

Unilever’s role in the plastic crisis

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

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

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

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

Let’s end the age of plastic!

Ask world leaders to support Global Plastic Treaty so that we can finally turn off the tap and end the age of plastic.

Take action

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

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

What is fast fashion?

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

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

What are the environmental and health costs of fast fashion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does fast fashion impact the Global South?

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

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

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

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

Fast fashion and exploitative labour practices: the human cost

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

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

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

Can fast fashion be green?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is fast fashion worth it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

Notes:

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

[2] Cascading Failures in Power Grids 

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

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

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

Contact: 

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

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