Ever tried planning a trip across Europe and wondered: why are flights so cheap while trains cost a fortune? It’s not unusual to find a €15 flight and a €300 train ticket for the same day, same destination. How does that make any sense? If trains are the greener option, why are we basically being punished for choosing them?

The difference in prices isn’t a coincidence, it’s the result of a transport system that rewards pollution. We analysed 142 routes across 31 countries and the result shows that for a majority of cross-border trips, rail remains far more expensive than air. Here are 3 key reasons why: 

1. Aviation enjoys unfair tax privileges

You might have heard colourful slogans from low-cost airlines like “Nothing beats a cheap-flight holiday!” but the reality is the planet is paying the extra cost of cheap flight tickets. Polluting air travel is subsidised and it’s the biggest contributor to transport emissions. Aviation fuel remains untaxed across most of Europe. This mode of transport enjoys several financial benefits like:

• No tax on jet fuel (kerosene)
• No VAT on international flight tickets while trains in many countries must charge full VAT.
• Low airport fees and government subsidies, especially for budget airlines flying out of regional airports.
• Billions in public bailouts seen especially during COVID, when airlines across Europe were operating empty or near-empty flights in order to retain valuable take-off and landing slots at airports.

2. Green travel gets penalised

Train trips can cost up to 26 times more than flights, as the most extreme example found shows: Barcelona to London costs just €14.99 by plane, compared to €389 by train. The current system is making climate-friendly travel harder. Unlike aviation, rail operators are charged with:

• Energy taxes
• VAT in many countries
• High infrastructure fees
• Track access fees

The problems don’t stop at pricing, for people with reduced mobility, train travel can be even more inaccessible as rail networks are left with crumbling infrastructure and fewer connections because of underfunding and neglect.

3. Tax and climate injustice 

When you have to decide between a €15 flight and a €300 train ticket for the same day journey, it’s not a fair choice. What may seem like consumer freedom or cost preferences is a system of distorted prices, tax injustice, and political inaction. Most people are inclined to choose flights not because they want to, but because they’re being steered to that option by a system that has quietly made green travel the more expensive and inaccessible option.

What needs to change

As the world grapples with record wildfires, droughts and heatwaves, aligning transport pricing with climate objectives is essential. Governments need to stop rewarding pollution. We are calling for climate tickets, fair pricing and a tax on the super-rich to fund better rail services.

We need a transport system that puts people and the planet first. Train travel is the greener choice and it shouldn’t come with a higher price tag.

Tax the super-rich

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

Add your name

Jackie Zamora is European social economic engagement lead for Greenpeace’s Fair Share campaign.

This August, as we highlight and celebrate Indigenous Peoples Month, we are fortunate to have three powerful messages of defiance and hope from the three great tropical forests of the world. These messages are profound in themselves, but altogether, they represent the growing transnational movement of Indigenous solidarity and leadership that can inspire and guide us all. This is a movement grounded in ancestral knowledge and shaped by a vision that extends far beyond the present moment. 

As pessimism dampens our collective sights, we can and must turn to such perspectives —  perspectives based in a longer history and the deepest values of kinship and community. As the illogic of capitalism and colonialism fails everyone but the elite, we must learn from Indigenous ways of seeing, being, knowing, and doing.  

West Papua

“If you ask me what my vision is for West Papua, in particular the land belonging to the Knasaimos Indigenous people, I will tell you that nature must be preserved for generations to come. That in hundreds of years hence, Indigenous people must still be able to enjoy our forests and rivers, and breathe fresh air, just as we can now.”

These are the words of Nabot Sreklefat, a leader and organizer among Indigenous youth in West Papua, home to the last tropical forests of Indonesia still standing. 

Sreklefat speaks passionately about how his people have stood up to illegal logging, transmigration, and palm oil expansion in the Knasaimos region. But the struggle has been years in the making and often boils down to the need to win recognition of their traditional rights and territory. 

Last year, “we received recognition of our customary territory from the Regent of South Sorong, after 17 years of fighting for recognition from both the regional and central governments. When we received the decree, we felt that the state had finally acknowledged us as an Iindigenous people. It was a truly remarkable event.” 

They now seek recognition from the central government. 

Sreklefat also speaks of learning from other Indigenous groups, including the recent inaugural World Congress of Indigenous People and Local Communities of Forest Basins. 

“When I returned to Knasaimos, I told our community that the struggle of Iindigenous peoples isn’t just in Papua, but throughout the world. So, don’t give up. If other places have already invested heavily and are being persuaded to accept it, that’s not the case. We must be strong in protecting our forests. From that meeting, I became even more convinced that the struggle of Indigenous peoples is crucial.”

Amazonia

“Politicians must respect the Constitution—it wasn’t written overnight. It came from our struggle. Now, they’re tearing it apart with laws that destroy our sacred land. They ignore Brazil’s future. I just want them to respect our constitutional rights. Simple as that.” 

These words belong to Dineva Maria Kayabi, a teacher, mother, and advocate for Indigenous peoples in the Amazon rainforest.

Kayabi describes her village on the banks of the Rio dos Peixes, where families grow their own food (bananas, yams, beans) in community gardens. Yet this idyllic home comes with a history of displacement and violence. Her community were forced to leave their homeland in Batelão to avoid being killed by cattle ranchers. Then her own mother was severely abused in Utiariti, a catechism center, before being forced to marry. 

From such deep suffering, Kayabi has forged a life of service and learning, earning a Master’s degree in Education to become a teacher and successfully bringing high school education to her territory. She now directs her efforts to coordinating with COIAB (Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon), the largest Indigenous organization in the Amazon, and traveling around the world to advocate for Indigenous peoples. 

Congo Basin

“My tribe, the Tshwa, has lived in harmony with the forest for generations. We know its plants, its spirits, its secrets. And yet, in the minds of many decision-makers, we are still seen as ‘sub-citizens,’ obstacles to development, shadows in the trees.” 

These words come from Valentin Engobo Mufia, a father and leader in his seventh decade of life. Hailing from Lokolama in the equatorial forest of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mufia speaks about the importance of protecting the forest. 

“The peatlands we have protected for centuries are among the most vital carbon sinks on Earth. They are a natural barrier against climate chaos. And yet, instead of listening to us, we are sidelined.”

Mufia says it’s long past the time for empty words and gestures. He shares his community’s demands:

• Clear, international legal recognition of our rights
• Direct and structured access to climate finance
• Training and education tailored to our context
• Full inclusion in all development policies and decisions

A Future Rooted in the Past

Each of the Indigenous Leaders speaks of their present struggles as well as their hope for the future. This is a hope rooted in prophecy, values, and ancient stories. Kayabi shares a particularly moving story: 

“This is what I learned from Ita Mait, my people’s shaman stone. Her home is at the top of the Salto Sagrado waterfall.  But one day, they stole her away. The white man who took her lost his hair, suffered pain, and died. She fell from the plane, crossed the sea, and my father-in-law, a shaman, sang every day: ‘She is coming back.’ Because, just like our culture, the stone finds its way back.”

Indigenous peoples have faced decades, if not centuries, of intersecting oppressions in every corner of the earth. Yet their resistance persists and is even growing. Through their messages, we can find hope in a wider vision and real solutions. 

Tsering Lama is a Storytelling Manager with Greenpeace International.

From documenting the forest fire in Spain to fire prevention training in Indonesia, to the UN oceans meeting in New York, here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace’s work around the world this week.

Spain -Wildfires are tearing through Spain – already nearly 400,000 hectares burned, lives lost, and communities devastated.

Indonesia – Greenpeace Indonesia’s Forest Fires Prevention Team (TCA) conducts an emergency first aid (PPGD) practice during the Forest Fires Prevention Team (TCA) 2025 training activity in Lebung Itam village, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, Indonesia.

United Kingdom – Greenpeace ocean campaigner Franziska Saalmann meets former Formula 1 world champion Sebastian Vettel at the Stralsund Maritime Museum (a Greenpeace partner).
The occasion is the endangered porpoise populations. In the southwestern and eastern Baltic Seas, which, according to the latest counts, number between 1,300 and 5,800. The genetically distinct population in the eastern Baltic Sea now comprises only about 500 animals and is threatened with extinction.

United States of America – During the second day of the meeting of the Global Ocean Treaty Preparatory Commission, Greenpeace held an event at the United Nations Headquarters in partnership with activists, scientists and indigenous community members. Together, they made the case for large new protected areas of the high seas in the Atlantic and across the globe, which could help to reach the 30 by 30 target. The event, featuring panellists from Bermuda, Nigeria, and Canada, demanded integrity in recognising and empowering local and Indigenous rights, allowing for co-governance rooted in both scientific and traditional knowledge. This grounded, inclusive approach will ensure these Marine Protected Areas are both ecologically robust and socially just.

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.

Mandan, North Dakota — Greenpeace International met Energy Transfer in a hearing in North Dakota District Court to address the fossil fuel pipeline company’s request to Judge James D. Gion for an anti-suit injunction protecting it from accountability under Dutch and European Union law for the back-to-back SLAPP lawsuits filed in the US against Netherlands-based Greenpeace International.[1][2]

Energy Transfer’s request for the first ever anti-suit injunction issued by a North Dakota state court seeks to violate the principles of international comity and, if granted, would undermine the ability of the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive to protect EU citizens from attacks on their free speech coming from the US.

Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defense, Greenpeace International said: ”Energy Transfer’s aggressive attempt to stop Greenpeace International from pursuing justice and restitution under Dutch and EU law is very much in character. After filing back-to-back abusive lawsuits in the US, Energy Transfer clearly fears a jurisdiction that has protections against abusive SLAPP lawsuits. 

“Energy Transfer is attempting to pressure the North Dakota court into an unprecedented order to stop Greenpeace International from pursuing the proceedings in the Netherlands. These panicked moves show the power of the EU’s new anti-SLAPP directive is being felt. This legislation is intended to protect those who speak out for the public good from exactly the types of bullying tactics that Energy Transfer has been waging in the US.”

Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam in February 2025 under the European Union’s law to protect freedom of expression.[3] Energy Transfer requested relief from the same North Dakota District Court that is still deciding on a final judgment in its pending intimidation lawsuit against Greenpeace International and Greenpeace entities in the US. Judge Gion has not yet delivered a final judgment in that case.[4]

Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

ENDS

Photos and videos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library. 

Notes:

[1] Notice of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction

[2] ET’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on the state law so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims. In the North Dakota state case, a Morton County jury found Greenpeace defendants liable for a perverse amount of damages, more than US$660 million, despite the lack of evidence presented during the trial.

[3] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. 

[4] Still no evidence and still no final judgment in Energy Transfer lawsuit

Contacts:

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

Join the Greenpeace SLAPP Trial WhatsApp Group for our latest updates

New York, US – Activists, scientists and Indigenous community members alongside Greenpeace called on governments to agree on the process for the first protected areas under the Global Ocean Treaty as the BBNJ Preparatory Commission talks resume at the United Nations Headquarters in New York this week.

Following a flurry of national ratifications at the UN Ocean Conference in June, the landmark Treaty is expected to clear the required number for a highly anticipated entry into force in the coming months, vital to protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. 

Professor Babajide Alo, from Nigeria, Scientific Advisor and Lead AGN Negotiator for the BBNJ said: “The science is clear: Sanctuaries play a critical role in preserving biodiversity and sustaining food security for the billions who depend on ocean resources. Africa has vast marine and coastal ecosystems, including critical areas like the Gulf of Guinea, Red Sea, Western Indian Ocean, and Southern Atlantic. Empowered local scientists are the foundation for resilient, equitable, and evidence-based ocean sanctuaries. One of the core parts of the BBNJ Treaty is capacity building for developing countries. The Treaty must be a tool to meaningfully engage with and strengthen the scientific and technical skills of African researchers. This will reduce dependency on external experts and promote local ownership of the new ocean sanctuaries.”

Professor Alo joined an event held by Greenpeace UK at the second BBNJ Preparatory Commission talks that convened panelists from Bermuda, Nigeria and Canada, who demand recognition and empowerment of local and Indigenous rights, allowing for co-governance rooted in both scientific and traditional knowledge. This grounded, inclusive approach will ensure these Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are both ecologically robust and socially just.

Noelle Young, Sustainability Solutionist and Environmental Justice Delegate from Bermuda, who spoke at the event said:  “The Sargasso Sea must become one of the first high seas marine protected areas under the High Seas Treaty.  It is one of the most studied, storied, and data rich regions of the global ocean – a borderless sea, alive with the migratory journeys of countless species. Bermuda is the only nation physically bound to the Sargasso.  All that we are is deeply tied to the health of this unique oceanic system; from our food security and fresh water access to human health and economic fragility. Bermuda – alongside other subnational island jurisdictions – must be granted permissions to help steer this Treaty toward true environmental justice.  Like many currents joining one sea, the voices of fishers, shipping companies, local and indigenous communities, governments and NGOs must flow together in guiding our future.”

Megan Randles, Head of Delegation, Greenpeace UK said: “For years, the key sticking points of the Treaty have been left waiting in the wings. During these talks, Governments have the chance to resolve these tough questions and avoid the Treaty only being able to deliver paper parks – areas protected on paper but with no tangible management measures to stop destructive human activities. Instead, the Treaty must revolutionise global ocean governance by closing vast areas of ocean to extractive and destructive human activities, and protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.”

ENDS 

Photos of the event are available in the Greenpeace Media Library.

Contact:

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

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

It’s time for world leaders to confront the elephant in the UN Global Plastics Treaty negotiation room: Big Oil. After two long weeks, world governments could not come to an agreement on how to tackle the plastic pollution crisis. The talks were adjourned with an unclear path forward, but the one thing that is certain coming out of INC-5.2 is that we will continue to demand a Treaty that puts the health of people and the planet before polluters. Millions of voices around the world won’t stop until the deal is done.

We can’t curb pollution unless we curb production

The root of the plastic problem is clear — the world makes too much of it. There is growing consensus that in order to protect biodiversity, align with the 1.5 degree Celsius climate target of the Paris Agreement, uphold Indigenous rights, and protect our health and communities, global plastic production must be dramatically reduced, and fast. Studies have already projected that plastic production could triple by 2050 if we continue on this path. But the planet and the climate simply cannot handle more plastic.

Plastic is in the air, water, soil, and running through the blood in our veins — this should have been enough of a wake up call for governments to act. Throughout its lifespan, plastic releases harmful emissions, chemicals, and macro, micro, and nano plastics. We can’t escape pollution, even in our homes. To actually address the plastic pollution disaster, the Treaty, at minimum, needed to provide a pathway to create international regulations to reduce plastics production. A Treaty that fails to address pollution at its source is doomed to fail to deliver the transformative change required to end the plastics crisis. 

Most governments committed to ambition, but blockers held the pen

In the run-up to INC-5.2, over 90 countries reaffirmed their support to an ambitious Treaty by signing on to the ministerial declaration “The Nice wake up call for an ambitious plastics treaty”. The declaration symbolised a renewed commitment on ambition including a call for the adoption of a global target to reduce the production and consumption of plastic, and other key elements of a strong Treaty including measures to address harmful products and chemicals, drive reuse systems, ensure equitable financing, and ensuring future conference of parties would be able to vote — to break the deadlock that has plagued 6 rounds of negotiations. 

More ambitious countries came to INC-5.2 ready to get to work. Dozens of countries signed on to support the critical measures needed to secure an impactful Treaty. But the work to iron out details and find common ground were once again foiled by a process that allowed a small minority of countries not negotiating in good faith to be rewarded for bad behaviour. In the end two Treaty drafts were presented by the Chair but neither were fit for purpose And here we are again with no clarity on how governments are going to break this toxic cycle.

As the plastic pollution emergency evolves into a public health emergency, history will show that governments’ inertia, INC after INC, played a major role in how two years later the world is still waiting for bold action. But even more stark is the role a handful of bad actors played in using a multilateral process to drive ambition into the ground, further entrenching us in a system dripping in fossil fuel dependence, pollution, and destruction.

The business case is clear

As the fossil fuel lobby held on to the status quo by its nails, the counter lobby made it clear that governments could choose a different path — business models and systems that supported communities could thrive, instead of simply survive.

Even major fast moving consumer goods companies dependent on single-use plastics, like Unilever and members of the Business Coalition, have said enough is enough, time for a new system. Over 450 businesses leaders through Greenpeace International, Break Free From Plastic, and the Plastic Pollution Coalition Champions of Change initiative, called for a strong Treaty that cuts production, and bit by bit we have seen a coalescing on key calls to action for governments. Plastic pollution is bad for business, and it’s only a matter of time before more industries join the chorus calling for action, with their customers and civil society standing behind them.

Time for Big Plastic to be shown the door

Just like plastic pollution, the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry is everywhere. They take up space in community gatherings, pretend to blend in at sustainability conferences, sponsor public events and sports stadiums, and buy media space to drive their greenwashing agenda. And their stronghold on UN processes aimed at addressing their legacy of harm has been eye-opening through the Plastics Treaty negotiations. INC after INC fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists show up in droves, with INC-5.2 hitting a record number of 234  representatives registered, according to Center for International Environmental Law’s findings. 

Just before the talks began, Greenpeace UK released a report that revealed how some of the world’s largest petrochemical companies have been systematically lobbying against cuts to plastic production while generating massive profits from their growing plastics business. According to the report, since the Treaty talks began in November 2022, seven companies alone have produced 1.4 million tonnes, enough plastic to fill five and a half garbage trucks every minute, while sending 70 lobbyists to negotiations, supported by major industry front groups.

Greenpeace International and The Center for International Environmental Law also delivered a letter to the heads of UNEP and the INC secretariat calling for fossil fuel lobbyists to be banned from all future Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.

Does multilateralism need a life raft?

The rough state of multilaterialism has been evident at each painful round of Plastics Treaty negotiations. Challenging geopolitics and the weight of a thousand invisible multilateral dynamics can be crushing when the rate of solving the world’s massive environmental and social justice crises is glacial.

We need global solutions to global problems, and global agreements to create global regulations. But something needs to give. As INC-5.2 played out, the Greenpeace delegation shared one meme over and over again in chat channels, reading “The politics are brutal”. It provided some dark humour but also served as a reminder that in moments like this, being united with the growing movement of people pushing for a plastic free future is even more essential to hold world leaders accountable.

Where do we go from Geneva?

Can’t stop, won’t stop. The world needs a global agreement that cuts plastic production, upholds Indigenous Rights, prioritises the health and rights of frontline and impacted communities, protects biodiversity and doesn’t further fuel the climate crisis.

In the weeks to come, world leaders will need to decide where they go from here. The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on. Governments cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

The time for hesitation is over. Only courage and perseverance will get us to a strong agreement. The health of current and future generations, our communities, and our planet’s ecosystems depends on it.

Let’s end the age of plastic!

Ask world leaders to support a strong Global Plastic Treaty that addresses the whole life cycle of plastic.

Take action

Sarah King is a Senior Strategist with the Greenpeace Plastic Free Future campaign.