For a long time, the answer to this question 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

Vulnerable seniors captured in ice, restoring corals, and heatwaves hitting Europe. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Germany – With four life-size ice sculptures, Greenpeace Germany is commemorating the victims of this extreme summer at Berlin’s treeless Gendarmenmarkt. In the center of the melting sculptures, activists display the updated number of heat-related deaths: 15,800. According to current estimates by the Robert Koch Institute, this is how many people died prematurely from the effects of the heat in the summer of 2026.

Indonesia – Greenpeace Indonesia, the USBA Institute, the Raja Ampat Indigenous Community, and the Congo Basin Indigenous Community participate in coral reef restoration activities through coral transplantation on Arborek Island, Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, Indonesia. The activity highlights the importance of Indigenous-led conservation and collective efforts to protect and restore Raja Ampat’s rich marine biodiversity and coral reef ecosystems.

Belgium – A massive fire broke out on Friday 14 August 2026 in the High Fens nature reserve (East of Belgium). Fuelled by the dry vegetation, this peatland fire ravaged more than 3,000 hectares of nature.

Germany – Greenpeace Germany activists demonstrate in front of Neuhardenberg Castle near Berlin for better climate protection, using a fire truck and a banner reading “Merz, put out the fire.”

Wales – Greenpeace UK addresses Prime Minister Andy Burnham in a massive land artwork on the side of a mountain in Conwy, Wales, where “terrifying” wildfires recently incinerated vast parts of the landscape. Greenpeace used the scorched earth as a canvas to send a message to the new British Prime Minister “Our house is on fire Andy”, accompanied by an illustration of Burnham poised to pour oil and gas over the flames urging the new PM to pay attention to climate impacts battering the country and reject consent for more drilling in the North Sea.
The artwork was made using eco-friendly, plastic free paint.

Indonesia – Representatives of Papuan and Brazilian Amazon Indigenous communities hold a photo opportunity during Raja Ampat Indigenous Grand Assembly in Arborek island, Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua. To celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, and to support their movement to protect their lands.

Black Sea – Greenpeace activists from Romania, Austria, Slovenia, and Slovakia aboard the ship Arctic Sunrise carried out a peaceful protest in the international waters of the Black Sea, calling for the deployment of safe renewables over risky gas projects. Deploying a 11-meter floating banner, they highlighted how offshore gas extraction in the Black Sea is highly vulnerable to military attacks and cannot guarantee energy security, while posing grave risks to marine ecosystems.

Cameroon – On the occasion of International Youth Day, The Youth and Volunteers Programme organised an activity titled “SPORT FOR EBO FOREST” at Parcours Vita in Yaoundé. This hiking event, held in support of the Ebo Forest, enabled youths and volunteers to take part in a fitness walk led by a sports coach, participate in a photo session, and enjoy moments of bonding through recreational games.

Denmark – Greenpeace Nordic activists peacefully protest at the headquarters of the lobbying organization Danish Agriculture & Food Council in Copenhagen, Denmark. The activists have climbed up and raised a red warning flag on the flagpole and hung a large banner over the façade with the message: “Dead fjords start here.” The protest draws a straight line from the lobbying organisation to the dying fjords and waters that are under pressure from oxygen depletion caused by nitrogen pollution from industrial agriculture.

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.

Six months after the US-Israeli war on Iran began, civilians, ecosystems and households far beyond the battlefield are still paying its price. The costs appear in lives lost and displaced, polluted seas and air, and higher bills driven by a fossil fuel-dependent energy system.

The human cost of the war on Iran

It is difficult to have an exact, up-to-date figure, but various records indicate that more than 8,000 human beings have lost their lives and around 50,000 have been injured as a result of the war:

● In the first 40 days of the war alone, more than 3,500 people were killed in Iran.

● More than 750 US soldiers wounded and 18 killed, according to the Pentagon (the same institution that has recently hidden figures).

Every life is sacred and the human suffering of this and any war should be reason enough to stop the bombing.

The environmental cost of the war on Iran

War ruins life in all its forms. Even relatively small oil spills can have a strong environmental impact and lasting consequences for marine ecosystems.

The impact of oil spills is so severe that some of them are now visible from space. One example is the spill stretching for more than eight kilometres south of the Iranian island of Qeshm, after a vessel was damaged in waters near the Strait of Hormuz. Despite clean-up efforts, this has put mangroves, coastal habitats and the people whose livelihoods depend on the sea at risk.

But sadly, this is not the first oil spill caused by war, and it certainly won’t be the last. In May, for example, the Iranian Navy frigate IRIS Dena was torpedoed and sunk by the U.S. Navy in the Indian Ocean. Three days after it sank, an oil slick appeared near the coast of Sri Lanka, showing that transporting oil safely is just as impossible as cleaning up an oil spill.

Also in May, an oil spill, allegedly caused by attacks on a refinery, reached the shores of Shidvar Island, one of Iran’s most important protected nature reserves and a refuge for coral reefs, endangered sea turtles, dolphins and birds, which were trapped in the tar.

And as if that weren’t enough, this is compounded by the contamination of drinking water, the air, and food. In the first two weeks of the war on Iran alone, 5 million tonnes of CO₂ were emitted. Attacks on oil installations have caused “black rain” (a mixture of oil and precipitation) and thick plumes of toxic smoke, while the bombing of military installations spreads dangerous pollutants.

It is in this way that war not only takes lives, but also destroys the systems that make life possible: water networks, sewage treatment works, farmland, ports, fuel depots and the electricity infrastructure, amongst others.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Greenpeace International (@greenpeace)

The economic cost of the war on Iran

War is very, very expensive. Reconstruction, long-term health and environmental harm, lost livelihoods, the higher gas, energy and food costs paid by households worldwide, and of course the direct military costs. Let’s take the latter for reference:

According to United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the first five months of the war cost US$37 billion. If that’s true, the war has cost US$260 million a day.

But despite that being almost double the daily economic expenditure of the Vietnam War, it’s not enough for Trump – which is why the Pentagon requested an additional US$67 billion from Congress. Yes, two times what it claims to have spent. To put that in perspective, that figure is greater than the GDP of entire countries like Cameroon, Jordan, or Iceland. And even then, it would barely cover a small portion of the expenses.

Linda J. Bilmes, a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, suggests that the war has cost so far around US$120 billion —and “that doesn’t include another US$250 billion for rebuilding the hundreds of U.S. facilities across the Middle East that have been destroyed or damaged. And then there are long-term costs, which are the sort of base of the iceberg, and they are much larger”.

There’s more. The Iran war could unleash the largest single-year US military expenditure since World War II. That is, if Congress approves the obscene US$1.5 trillion defense budget the Trump administration proposed for 2027.

And what is all that money for? No, it’s not to fund public health care for US citizens. Nor is it to help young people pay off their student debt. While US weaponry and your personal budget are dwindling, Trump’s goal is to build a “Dream Military“.

The personal cost of the war on Iran (on your budget)

Meanwhile, millions of people are living a nightmare. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which almost a fifth of the world’s oil used to pass) has caused the price of oil to fluctuate wildly. And when that happens, everything gets more expensive.

It’s called fossilflation (inflation triggered by rising costs of fossil fuels) and you’re probably already paying for it, whether it’s in the gas prices, in your groceries, your energy bill, or even your rent.

Although Trump says the increase in prices is just “peanuts”, the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates that US Americans have collectively paid more than US$86 billion extra since the war began. That means that, on average, each household in the US has had to find ways to pay US$660 more in the last six months.

And the worst part is that, even if the war ends tomorrow (and we hope it does), we will continue to feel the effects of fossilflation for months and even years, all over the world.

And how much does the solution cost? It’s actually pretty affordable 

With six months having passed since the war began, it’s worth asking: what brought us here in the first place? There’s a determining factor in this equation: the global economy’s utter addiction to fossil fuels.

And that’s why we talk about fossilflation (and not just inflation). The human, environmental, and economic costs of this war could be avoided if our economies didn’t depend on the oil that’s blocked in Hormuz and spilling in Oman.

How can governments protect people from future fossil fuel price shocks?

While the world watches in terror and confusion, the solution to this crisis already exists. No strait can block the sun or the wind, and that’s why renewables are a strategic solution for a country’s energy and economic security. Moreover, renewable energy is already the most affordable new source of electricity in most parts of the world. Solar power is, on average, 41% cheaper and onshore wind power more than 50% cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternatives.

One way to finance this energy transition is by taxing the very oil companies that are currently reaping record profits from the war. So there’s no excuse. Your government must protect the people from fossilflation and reduce your country’s dependence on fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to clean energy

Six months on, the costs of this war are being carried by people who did not choose it: families facing violence and displacement, communities having to breathe toxic air, and households squeezed by higher bills. Governments must pursue peace, make fossil fuel polluters pay and invest in renewable energy, efficient homes, public transport and resilient food systems. Only by reducing dependence on volatile oil and gas can we build lasting security.

Make war profiteers pay: tax fossil fuel profits

Stop fossil fuel giants profiting from war and pollution. Sign now to tax profits and fund disaster relief and energy independence.

Sign now