SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
greenpeace
'There Is No Lack of Money': Climate Movement Demands Billionaire Tax to Fund Greener Future
"A fair billionaire tax could fund climate flood prevention, clean air, green cities, affordable housing, and nature protection," said one Greenpeace campaigner.
Oct 30, 2025
As Hurricane Melissa leaves a trail of destruction in the Caribbean and the world prepares for the next United Nations climate summit, campaigners this week are demanding taxes to make the superrich pay for creating a better future for all, including by transitioning away from planet-wrecking fossil fuels to renewable energy.
An Oxfam International report released Tuesday found that consumption-based carbon emissions of the richest 0.1% of the global population surged by 92 tonnes between 1990 and 2023, while CO2 pollution from the poorest half of humanity grew by just 0.1 tonnes.
The following day, the UK government released a new climate action plan for the next 12 years. The country aims to decarbonize its electricity supply by 2030 and reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The climate group 350.org responded by urging Chancellor Rachel Reeves to introduce a tax on ultrawealthy individuals and polluting companies.
"Ordinary people are already paying the price for a crisis they didn't cause—from failed harvests here in the UK to devastation from Hurricane Melissa overseas," 350.org UK campaigner Matilda Borgström said in a statement. "The government's plan will only work if it is funded fairly."
"There's more than enough wealth in this country to pay for affordable clean energy, warm homes, and secure jobs," Borgström argued. "The question for Rachel Reeves is simple: Whose side is she on, ordinary people or the superrich?"
BREAKING: 80+ young people are outside the Treasury right now to tell Rachel Reeves: make tax the super-rich PAY UP - or step down.This Budget, it's time for Reeves to pick a side: us or the billionaires. For wealth taxes to fund investment in a better future.
[image or embed]
— Green New Deal Rising (@gndrising.bsky.social) October 27, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Meanwhile, Greenpeace on Thursday took aim at the wealthiest person on the planet, Elon Musk. As of Thursday, his estimated net worth is $472-490.2 billion, though he could become the world's first trillionaire if shareholders of electric vehicle giant Tesla approve his proposed CEO pay package next week.
Noting Tesla's annual general meeting on November 6, Greenpeace called on governments "to lay the ground for a global tax reform" negotiations for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, scheduled to start in Nairobi, Kenya on November 10—the same day the climate summit, COP30, is set to begin in Belém, Brazil.
"Instead of enabling one person to become a trillionaire, governments should unlock that same scale of wealth—the $1.7 trillion, which a billionaire and multimillionaire tax could generate per year globally—to protect lives and secure our common future," said Fred Njehu, Greenpeace Africa political lead for the Fair Share campaign, in a statement.
"A fair billionaire tax could fund climate flood prevention, clean air, green cities, affordable housing, and nature protection," Njehu noted. "There is no lack of money, only a failure to make the richest of the rich pay their fair share. Governments must act on behalf of the majority of people and listen to what many economic experts suggest: Tax the superrich and their polluting corporations to finance a fair green transition."
A UN synthesis report published Tuesday shows that governments' climate plans, officially called Nationally Determined Contributions, would cut emissions by just 10% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, dramatically short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global temperature rise this century at 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
"There is little mistaking the potential of the wealth tax to serve as a financial engine for environmental initiatives," Amir H. Khodadadi, an Iranian developmental economist focused on climate policy and green technology, wrote Wednesday for Earth.org. "Theoretically, a properly designed wealth tax could redistribute wealth and underwrite everything from renewable energy infrastructure to strategies for climate adaptation."
"Reality, however, is a good deal trickier," Khodadadi acknowledged. "As attractive as it is from those standpoints, using a wealth tax for climate action raises some very thorny questions about equity, effectiveness, and possible unintended consequences that will need to be thoughtfully weighed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
European Court of Human Rights Delivers 'Quantum Leap for Climate Accountability'
"Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue," said one campaigner.
Oct 28, 2025
Although the European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday sided with the Norwegian government over six young adults and a pair of climate groups, the plaintiffs still welcomed the tribunal's ruling as "a major step forward," in the words of Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway.
The case stems from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granting 10 exploration licenses to 13 companies for fossil fuel production in the Arctic Barents Sea in 2016. The plaintiffs argued that doing so violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the right to respect for private and family life.
The court unanimously held that "there had been no violation" of Article 8, but it also affirmed that the government must conduct a full environmental impact assessment, including greenhouse gas emissions from combustion, for any new petroleum production.
"It's a relief to see the court recognize what science has told us for years—that new oil and gas fields threaten our most basic human rights," Pleym said in a statement. "Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue."
Young Friends of the Earth Norway, which sued alongside Greenpeace and the six individuals, also praised the ruling as progress.
"This decision is a quantum leap for climate accountability," said the group's leader, Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård. "The government can no longer continue its oil and gas policy as if climate change doesn't exist. This judgment will have ripple effects far beyond Norway."
I can think of at least seven ways fossil fuel producers could wiggle out of this, but still: holy shit this is huge.
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) October 28, 2025 at 7:17 AM
The plaintiffs noted in a joint statement that the ruling "builds on" recent decisions from the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The ICJ said in a landmark advisory opinion in July that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. At the time, Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, hailed the development as "the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level."
That decision came roughly a year after the UK's top court ruled that Surrey authorities' approval of the Horse Hill drilling project "was unlawful" because they didn't consider "emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel," as required by law. Friends of the Earth UK called the ruling "a heavy blow for the fossil fuel industry" that could impact other projects.
The European court's Tuesday decision came less than two weeks away from the start of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil. In preparation for COP30, the UN on Tuesday released a report warning that governments' climate plans would reduce fossil fuel emissions by just 10% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
As Oil Change International pointed out in a June report, Norway and three other wealthy nations—Australia, Canada, and the United States—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade. This month, the group commissioned a poll that found a majority of Norwegians believe their country should either stop exploring for new oil and gas or slow down the pace.
"The data show that Norwegians increasingly want political leadership that aligns the country's oil policy with its climate goals," Oil Change's North Sea campaign manager, Silje Lundberg, said Monday. "People are calling time on endless oil expansion—it's the government that's stuck in the past. The public clearly wants a plan to phase down oil and gas and deliver real climate leadership, not more empty talk from ministers protecting the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Climate Vandalism, Pure and Simple': Defiant BP to Reopen North Sea Oil Field
"The only sensible thing to do is to pivot the North Sea to something we have an abundance of, and something that will never run out—wind," argued one climate advocate.
Aug 11, 2025
As the United Kingdom on Monday faced the onset of its fourth heatwave of this summer, climate campaigners continued to call out BP for its decision to plow ahead with reopening the Murlach oil field in the North Sea, despite fossil fuels pushing up global temperatures and the U.K. government's efforts to limit extraction in the region.
"This is climate vandalism, pure and simple," Kate Blagojevic, Europe team lead at the group 350.org, said in a Monday statement. "BP is putting its profit margins above the survival of communities, ecosystems, and future generations. Every barrel of oil from this project pushes us closer to climate breakdown, more floods, more fires, more heatwaves."
"The era of fossil fuels is over, and BP's desperate attempts to wring out the last drops of oil from the North Sea are a reckless betrayal of the public and the planet. They should be winding down, not doubling down," she declared.
Greenpeace U.K. policy director Doug Parr was similarly critical, saying in a statement that "the North Sea is on death's door. Reserves are drying up, and what's left and untapped is barely enough to keep it on life support."
The Telegraph on Sunday noted recent research from the government's North Sea Transition Authority that found there were over 3 billion barrels of oil and gas in fields already in production, 6 billion barrels in known potential developments, and 3.5 billion barrels in identified exploration zones.
According to the newspaper, BP said the Murlach field contains 20 million barrels of recoverable oil and 600 million cubic meters of gas, and is "expected to produce around 20,000 barrels of oil and 17 million cubic feet of gas per day," due to new technologies that weren't around when it was shut down over two decades ago.
Parr said that "3 billion barrels wouldn't last more than a few years at current rates of consumption, and even that assumes it is economic to extract. Whatever the political rhetoric, the oil and gas is pretty much gone, and soon, so too will the jobs of thousands of workers."
"Unless we want to remain dependent on overseas imports and watch an entire industry collapse with no plan for workers," he added, "the only sensible thing to do is to pivot the North Sea to something we have an abundance of, and something that will never run out—wind."
Although the U.K's current Labour Party leaders have pledged to avoid new licensing for fossil fuel projects in the North Sea, "BP won agreement to reopen Murlach, 120 miles east of Aberdeen, under the previous government and has since been installing equipment, with production potentially restarting next month," The Telegraph explained.
A spokesperson for Ed Miliband, U.K. secretary of state for energy security and net zero, said Sunday that "we are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment to not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis."
"We are delivering a fair and orderly transition in the North Sea, with the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and two first-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage clusters," the spokesperson added.
Miliband in June announced new guidance for environmental impact assessments of proposed oil and gas projects in licensed fields, which came in response to last year's landmark U.K. Supreme Court ruling. After that decision, Judge Andrew Stewart of Scotland's Court of Session ruled in January that Equinor and Shell, which are respectively behind the Rosebank oil and gas field and the Jackdaw gas project, can't move ahead with extraction.
The June guidance means offshore developers can now submit applications for extractions in fields that are already licensed, including Rosebank and Jackdaw. In response to that development earlier this year, Mel Evans, Greenpeace U.K.'s head of climate, said that "it's only right for the government to take into account the emissions from burning oil and gas when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects currently pending."
"Since Rosebank and other drilling sites will pump out a lot of carbon while providing little benefit to the economy and no help to bill payers, they should fail the criteria ministers have just set out," Evans added. "Real energy security and future-proofed jobs for energy workers can only come through homegrown, cheap renewable energy, and that's what ministers should focus on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular