Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Images are available here.

WASHINGTON (June 12, 2026) —A California federal judge today conclusively denied the Bumble Bee tuna company’s request that the court reconsider its decision to allow a human trafficking case brought by Indonesian fishers to proceed. The court strongly rejected Bumble Bee’s argument that a federal anti-trafficking statute did not apply extraterritorially, finding that Congress had provided “a ‘clear, affirmative indication” that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) could proceed even though they arose outside the United States. The caseremains one of only a few TVPRA supply chain cases to advance beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Syafi’i, a plaintiff in the case, said in November, after Bumble Bee’s first attempt to dismiss the case was denied: “I’m actually in tears. I am happy and overwhelmed. This gives me hope for justice for me and my fellow plaintiffs as we struggle for justice and change for the better. Our fight and sacrifice are not in vain in order to get justice for all of the fishers. I remain steadfast, strong, and enthusiastic.”

In the complaint filed against Bumble Bee in March 2025, the fishers allege they were subjected to forced labor while working aboard vessels linked to Bumble Bee’s “trusted network” of suppliers. The alleged abuses included physical violence, emotional abuse, untreated life-threatening and deformity-causing injuries, debt bondage, excessive working hours, withheld pay, and financial threats against family members to prevent them from escaping. 

In a filing earlier this week, Bumble Bee denied both knowledge of forced labor issues in distant water fishing, an issue well-documented for over a decade, and — incredibly — suggested that the plaintiffs’ injuries were “actually” caused by the plaintiffs’ “own conduct.” Bumble Bee also claimed that the plaintiffs’ injuries were “speculative” and that any remedies provided to them — men who worked and suffered for months at sea–would be an unjust “windfall.”

Sari Heidenreich, Senior Human Rights Advisor, Global Fisheries, Greenpeace USA, said: “These men have lived with the consequences of the abuse they suffered every day since they worked on ships they say were part of Bumble Bee’s ‘trusted network’ of suppliers. The content of Bumble Bee’s recent filing, arguing that the men did not endure forced labor and caused their own injuries, shows just how far this company is willing to go to avoid accountability. Today’s ruling ensures these fishers can continue their pursuit of justice.”

“The allegations in this case are serious, and they are not going away. Bumble Bee must answer for its role in a supply chain where forced labor and horrific abuse are endemic.” 

In November, the court denied Bumble Bee’s initial motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. Bumble Bee subsequently asked the court to reconsider that decision and, alternatively, to permit an immediate appeal to a higher court. Today, Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant denied both requests, finding that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts for the case to proceed. The ruling strongly affirms that the TVPRA, the primary U.S. law used to combat human trafficking, applies to abuses that occur outside the United States, including aboard the fishing vessels on which the plaintiffs worked.

Greenpeace USA activists gathered outside the courthouse last week in solidarity with the plaintiffs and the estimated 128,000 fishers trapped in forced labor worldwide as the judge met with both parties to consider the motion. Signs featuring plaintiffs’ allegations and calls for accountability highlighted the human cost of labor abuses in global seafood supply chains, as Agnieszka Fryszman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, argued the issues in court. 

Heidenreich continued: “Bumble Bee and the rest of Big Seafood know how to address the risk of abuse in their supply chains: guarantee access to communication, limit time at sea, and strengthen transparency and oversight. The allegations in this case are a stark reminder of why those safeguards are necessary and what can happen when workers are isolated at sea without them. 

“The tide is turning. Worker protections are not optional, and companies can no longer treat them as an afterthought. A seafood industry free from forced labor is not only possible — it is the standard workers, communities, and consumers expect.” 

The continued progress of the case reflects a broader shift toward greater accountability for labor abuses in seafood supply chains. Recent developments include criminal charges in Taiwan against a vessel captain and others for the death and trafficking of workers, and a civil case challenging government-backed discrimination in the fisheries industry. 

The Greenpeace network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has called for concerted action by all stakeholders and governments across the seafood supply chain to end isolation at sea, a key factor enabling labor abuse and overexploitation of the oceans. Investigations and supply chain research from Greenpeace fisheries campaigns were used by the litigants’ attorneys to support this complaint.

The lawsuit, Akhmad v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00583, filed in March 2025 in U.S. federal court in San Diego, California, is currently before Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant. The law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP are leading the representation of the plaintiffs in the suit. 

---

Contacts:

Tanya Brooks, Senior Communications Specialist at Greenpeace USA, [email protected], +1 703 342 9226  

Greenpeace USA Press Desk: [email protected] 

Greenpeace USA (Inc.) is part of a global network of independent campaigning organizations that use peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace USA is committed to transforming the country’s unjust social, environmental, and economic systems from the ground up to address the climate crisis, advance racial justice, and build an economy that puts people first. Learn more at www.greenpeace.org/usa.

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Bonn, Germany, Friday 12 June 2026 — A diverse coalition of almost 100 civil society organisations representing Türkiye and Australia have released a joint statement at the Bonn climate conference urging the COP31 Presidency put the transition away from fossil fuels at the centre of the COP31 agenda.

The statement, signed by 94 organisations and addressed to Minister Murat Kurum (Türkiye) and Minister Chris Bowen (Australia), both attending the Bonn Climate Change Conference this week, emphasises that close cooperation between Türkiye and Australia brings a historic opportunity to make international progress in the transition away from fossil fuels, while walking the talk domestically and paving the way to a clean future within their respective borders.

By combining the diplomatic reach of both host nations with the long-standing climate leadership of the Pacific, COP31 should champion the action required to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The statement calls on the COP31 Presidency to:

• Commit to own and advance the just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.
• Turn the Just Transition Mechanism – agreed upon at COP30 to enhance international cooperation as well as support and enable equitable and inclusive just transitions –  into concrete actions through defined funding, clear timelines, and practical operational details that protect workers and vulnerable communities.
• Enable meaningful progress in international climate finance to advance all pillars of climate action on mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, ensuring that “big polluters pay”.
• Rebuild trust in the multilateral process by having a Presidency team that acts as an ‘honest broker.’ This includes protecting the integrity of negotiations from fossil fuel industry influence, which has had a worrying record presence in the last few COPs, and ensuring the full participation of civil society, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, local communities, and upholding human rights. 

The letter also urges Türkiye and Australia to inspire strong global outcomes in negotiations in Antalya in November, by leading by example, developing national roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels and taking bold decisions domestically. 

Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The Pacific is at the forefront of global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. From the beginning, we have worked to advance multilateral cooperation and strengthen the global climate regime — writing the 1.5°C redline into the Paris Agreement, establishing funding for loss and damage, and taking the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court. To the COP31 partnership, we bring the experience of 30 years of frontline leadership, the values of reciprocity and collective responsibility, and the warm hearts and unending resolve of our communities. We will continue to be the voice of science, justice and ambition. For us, phasing out fossil fuels and holding the line on 1.5°C is about survival. Together, we can ensure a safer, thriving future for the peoples of the Pacific and for communities worldwide.”

Tanyeli Behiç Sabuncu, WWF-Türkiye Climate and Energy Practice Manager, said: “As the President of COP31, Türkiye should not postpone leaving coal. One-third of the electricity mix in the country comes from it and new coal-fired power plant units are still being planned, despite losing both its economic and social licence. Phasing out fossil fuels is not merely an emission reduction goal. It is also a pathway toward a liveable world for people and nature as well as energy security for consumers and businesses. COP31 presents Türkiye a defining choice: stick to the choices of the past or lead a transformative shift toward a just and clean energy future. Announcing a coal phase-out date would send the clearest initial signal that the country takes its leadership role at COP seriously.

Denise Cauchi, CEO Climate Action Network Australia, said: “The fossil fuel era is ending. The escalating energy crisis is exposing the true costs of fossil fuel dependence—not only through worsening climate impacts, but also through global insecurity, energy price shocks and rising living costs. As the incoming President and President of Negotiations, Türkiye and Australia must put the 1.5°C temperature goal at the heart of COP31, which requires a managed, equitable transition away from coal, oil and gas, backed by finance and supported by a just transition. Australia must lead with credibility. As the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, it needs a clear plan to phase out fossil fuels, including exports, and contribute its fair share of international climate finance.”

ENDS

Photos from the press conference will be added here after the event. The press conference will be live streamed and archived here

Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan, Greenpeace on +61 406 231 892 (Whatsapp/Signal) or [email protected] 

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

SYDNEY, Friday 12 June 2026 — In response to the appointment of the inaugural CEO of Australia’s first National Environmental Protection Agency (National EPA), the following can be attributed to Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

“Greenpeace welcomes the appointment of the inaugural CEO of Australia’s first National EPA as the beginning of a new chapter in the conservation of our world-famous nature.

“Now is a time of environmental crossroads — the inaugural National EPA under new CEO John Bradley’s leadership has a duty to provide robust environmental protection advice to the Albanese Government, and can start by protecting Scott Reef and the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef.

“Mr Bradley has the important task ahead of leading the National EPA’s recommendation on Australia’s largest proposed fossil fuel project, Woodside’s toxic Browse project in Western Australia. Browse threatens Australia’s largest freestanding reef, Scott Reef, and our climate, and must be rejected by any agency concerned with protecting the environment.

“Mr Bradley must also use his new position to crack down on rampant deforestation, which is threatening the Great Barrier Reef and sending our native animals, like the koala, to the brink of extinction in Queensland and New South Wales. As a former head of Queensland’s state environment department, Mr Bradley understands the threat of deforestation, and has a unique opportunity to finally protect the Reef from that threat.”

—ENDS—

Images and videos of deforestation can be found here, and of Scott Reef here.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or [email protected]

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

WASHINGTON (June 11, 2026) — In response to the Trump administration’s decision to reopen the last three marine national monuments in Papahānaumokuākea, the Mariana Trench, and Rose Atoll to commercial fishing, John Hocevar, Greenpeace USA Programs Director, said: “As the World Cup begins, Trump has scored yet another “own goal,” undermining the security of America’s fishing industry and rolling back ocean protections that are working well. Last week, he stunned scientists by pledging to spend millions of dollars to remove a state-of-the-art ocean-monitoring system that Americans already paid for, which has been delivering world-class results — including benefits for fishers. Now he wants to open up three Pacific National Monuments to commercial fisheries, knowing full well that this will trigger more lawsuits against his shortsighted and ill-conceived assaults on science and common sense.

“Our national parks and monuments are part of what makes America great. Maybe it is because this president is more at home on a private golf course that he treats these magnificent places as just another cash cow to loot. Ocean sanctuaries like these are proven, cost-effective tools for rebuilding depleted fish populations, protecting biodiversity, and giving our oceans the resilience they need to withstand the impacts of climate change, plastic pollution, and other stresses.

Marine sanctuaries have proven benefits, including protecting marine biodiversity, supporting coastal economies, increasing resilience to change, and sustaining healthy, productive fisheries. Removing those protections doesn’t help fishers – it sacrifices their future for short-term gains.

“Trump destroys everything he touches. With the courts and the current Congress unwilling to hold him accountable, the mid-term elections will be the best chance we have to stop him from doing any more damage.” 

---

Contacts:

Tanya Brooks, Senior Communications Specialist at Greenpeace USA, [email protected]

Greenpeace USA Press Desk: [email protected] 

Greenpeace USA (Inc.) is part of a global network of independent campaigning organizations that use peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace USA is committed to transforming the country’s unjust social, environmental, and economic systems from the ground up to address the climate crisis, advance racial justice, and build an economy that puts people first. Learn more at www.greenpeace.org/usa. 

Source: Amnesty International –

In the context of the opening of the FIFA World Cup 2026, and following the events that took place last night during the mobilization of relatives of disappeared people, Amnesty International calls on Mexico City and federal authorities to fully guarantee the right of collectives and families of disappeared people to protest peacefully.

“Authorities have an obligation to facilitate and protect the right to peaceful protest, not to obstruct it. Their actions must prioritize dialogue, the protection of the integrity of those taking part in demonstrations, and the adoption of measures to prevent any form of repression, intimidation or unnecessary use of force.” said Edith Olivares Ferreto, Executive Director of Amnesty International Mexico.

Authorities have an obligation to facilitate and protect the right to peaceful protest, not to obstruct it. Their actions must prioritize dialogue, the protection of the integrity of those taking part in demonstrations, and the adoption of measures to prevent any form of repression, intimidation or unnecessary use of force.”

Edith Olivares Ferreto, Executive Director of Amnesty International Mexico

Families searching for disappeared people have played a fundamental role in making visible the crisis of disappearances in Mexico and in driving efforts for search, truth, justice and identification. Their work is a legitimate form of human rights defense and must be recognized, respected and protected by the state.

At a time when public and media attention is focused on events of national and international relevance, the authorities must ensure that the demands of the families of disappeared people can be expressed freely, without undue obstacles and without their members being stigmatized, criminalized or exposed to additional risks.

“Families search because the state has failed to fully guarantee truth and justice. Their demand cannot be treated as a threat to public order. Guaranteeing their right to demonstrate is not a concession: it is an obligation of the Mexican state.” said Edith Olivares.

Families search because the state has failed to fully guarantee truth and justice. Their demand cannot be treated as a threat to public order. Guaranteeing their right to demonstrate is not a concession: it is an obligation of the Mexican state.”

Amnesty International calls on the authorities to investigate any reports of possible abuses committed during the mobilization, guarantee the safety of families and collectives, and ensure that future protests take place in conditions of respect, dialogue and effective protection of human rights.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact [email protected]

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Speaking ahead of the sentencing (on 12 June) of four young people convicted of criminal damage after a break-in at an arms factory in Bristol in August 2024, in which the judge has said there may be a ‘terrorist connection’ that was not revealed during the trial, Greenpeace UK’s co-executive director Areeba Hamid said:

“It’s disgraceful that four British citizens could be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ when they haven’t been charged or convicted of a terror offence. Laws and sentencing guidelines already exist to punish these offences – labelling them as terrorists is disproportionate and cynical.

“There’s a long tradition of brave people damaging property to prevent injustice and the killing of civilians – from the US nuclear warheads at Greenham Common to the fences that shut people out of the countryside near their homes. Their bravery has made us all safer and freer. The British justice system is respected the world over, but for how much longer?”

Source: Amnesty International –

The six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) governments have intensified restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly amid ongoing conflict and economic turmoil, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said today. These latest measures exacerbate existing restrictions on migrant workers’ ability to raise concerns about working conditions in an already repressive environment for migrant workers and trade unions.

“Government arrests and barrages of warnings have created a climate of fear that is causing migrant workers to self-censor their private communications as well as online.”

Michael Page, Human Rights Watch

“The conflict in the Gulf region has spawned a new level of surveillance of migrant workers’ communications, undermining their ability to raise concerns about labor abuses and dangerous working conditions,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Government arrests and barrages of warnings have created a climate of fear that is causing migrant workers to self-censor their private communications as well as online.”

Human Rights Watch in March 2026 interviewed 38 Indian, Nepali, and Bangladeshi migrant workers based in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) about the impact of armed conflict in the region on their physical and economic security.

Many workers were particularly worried about their ability to speak out on issues they faced with human rights organizations and media, even under conditions of anonymity. 

In April, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch spoke with 15 migrant workers and worker community leaders in Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait from Nepal, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, India, and the Philippines, including follow-up conversations with five workers interviewed in March.  

During the regional conflict, Gulf countries have clamped down on free expression. In May, Amnesty International documented that more than 1,000 people have been arrested by GCC states in a crackdown to suppress information around the conflict, including sharing online content or expressing views related to the US-Israeli war with Iran and Iran’s attacks on Gulf states. GCC governments, embassies, and employers have also issued repeated warnings against “spreading rumors” or sharing conflict-related content on social media, which has added to a pervasive climate of fear and self-censorship among migrant workers.  

Several migrant workers and community leaders, including those in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar, described random police checks of residents’ mobile phones during the conflict. 

One Kuwait-based restaurant worker said that on his commute in April 2026, police randomly checked phones of workers, including his own. He said that people have been fined up to 1,000 Kuwaiti Dinar (KD) (about US$3,200) and even jailed if the authorities uncover videos or photos of attacks. “My salary is just KD150 [$485] per month,” he said. “I don’t post anything.” A migrant community leader in Qatar described routine inspections for photos or videos related to attack sites, while a UAE-based worker said police scroll through phones during random checks. 

One worker from Bangladesh said in April, “We have been told by the company not to post on social media. If the police catch us, the company has said they won’t be accountable.… People are scared even to speak up. If a company does not provide work, people should not be afraid to say so.”  

A worker from Nepal said that before he left the UAE for his vacation, his company warned him to delete all videos and pictures from his phone.  

The atmosphere of fear is further hampering the ability of human rights organizations to conduct research. “Before I say anything else, I need you [referring to the Human Rights Watch researcher] to understand something,” a Qatar-based migrant said. “Talking to you like this—even this conversation—frightens me. In Qatar right now, sharing information carries serious risk. People are being arrested. They’ve arrested people even for having certain videos saved on their phones.”  

A journalist who has long covered migrant rights issues in the Gulf noted the increased challenge for his reporting. “During normal times, interviews are based on referrals from trusted workers,” he said. “But this time, the people who make the referrals are scared to do so, and victims have been unwilling to speak despite needing help. Three Bahrain-based workers referred by my friend who are not being paid refused to speak with me today, even on conditions of anonymity.” Amnesty International also found some migrant workers less willing to refer friends or colleagues to speak to them. 

GCC countries have justified these restrictions on the need to protect national security and to prevent misinformation, and several workers said that they believed certain restrictions could help prevent panic and misinformation. However, under international human rights law and standards, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be provided by law and be strictly necessary and proportionate to one of the limited legitimate aims. The United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 34 has further said that restrictions on information sharing must not put the right itself in jeopardy and that they should remain exceptional.  

Several workers interviewed believed the heightened scrutiny and surveillance by Gulf governments and employers is an attempt to manage the reputation and economies of states that have invested heavily in their international image. Human Rights Watch has carried out extensive research on Gulf states’ reputation–laundering activities to distract from pervasive rights abuses. One UAE-based worker said, “I think they don’t want us to post anything because people might stop coming to the UAE.”  

Another labor rights activist said: “Gulf governments are trying to project an image of stability, pretending everything is fine.… Desperate to avoid any perception of crisis and the impact this could have on markets, investment and the economy, authorities are suppressing dissent on a wide scale. The cost of this repression is felt severely by migrant workers, as a climate of fear takes hold and suffocates the already limited community organizing and labor rights work in these countries.” 

The abuses against migrant workers are compounded by the systematic denial of migrant workers’ right to organize. Trade unions, which give a collective voice and representation to workers and can be particularly critical in times of crisis, are either banned, exclude migrant workers, or are so tightly restricted as to be meaningless. With no safe or effective channels to raise grievances, some workers are driven to strike despite the risk of facing employer retaliation, as well as arrest, detention, and deportation.  

This repression also extends beyond Gulf countries’ borders. Saudi Arabia in January 2026 asked the International Labour Organization governing body to prematurely close the article 26 complaint brought by African trade union groups against it. Instead of meaningfully engaging with the complaint, Saudi authorities needlessly named the leader of one of the African trade union originators in its response, exposing and putting at risk those who raise grievances and organize to defend migrant workers’ rights.

Saudi authorities also dismissed victims’ accounts that were presented anonymously for their protection. 

In the absence of formal unions, informal networks and diaspora groups are filling in primarily to share information and provide humanitarian support. However, their reach and capacity are often limited, the organizations said.  

A labor leader in Bahrain told Amnesty International that the government’s recent blanket ban on public gatherings in roads and squares, imposed in response to missile attacks, hindered community efforts “to provide urgent food supplies to migrant workers forced onto unpaid leave or subjected to wage cuts.” 

Governments have a responsibility in wartime to take measures to enhance public safety, but such measures should not result in unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The conflict must not be used as a pretext to further restrict civic space and suppress the ability of migrant workers to speak freely and organize.

Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International

“The conflict must not be used as a pretext to further restrict civic space and suppress the ability of migrant workers to speak freely and organize,” said Kristine Beckerle, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. “While undue restrictions on trade unions and free speech in the region long predate this conflict, their impact has been sharply amplified in the current context, deepening power imbalances and exposing migrant workers to greater harm. Gulf states must ensure that all workers can report openly about the problems they face and provide urgent social protection measures.”

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

• New government data reveals how billions in public money (£13.3 billion) has been spent on tax breaks for fossil fuel firms, undermining the UK’s own climate commitments
• Greenpeace analysis shows this total could have fully funded seven years of support for North Sea workers to securely transition to renewable industries
• Alternatively, the £13.3bn could alternatively have insulated every fuel-poor home in England (3.17 million homes) OR equipped every school and NHS hospital in England with onsite solar five times over. 
• Campaigners warn the findings expose “perverse” Treasury priorities while millions of UK households face crippling energy bills and soaring inflation 

New figures quietly released by the UK government reveal the astronomical scale of taxpayer support enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry – totaling £13.3 billion in tax breaks over a seven-year period. This figure excludes tax reliefs paid to oil companies for decommissioning, which, if included, would take the total over £20 billion. 

Greenpeace calculates this £13-billion handout could have fully funded a secure transition for North Sea oil and gas workers for seven years – which would include job creation in wind manufacturing, investment in green infrastructure and a dedicated training fund for displaced oil and gas workers. 

Instead, as the basin’s natural reserves decline, the government is failing to invest sufficiently in the jobs, training and infrastructure for the workforce to fairly transition to the clean energy sector. 

Fuelling profits, stranding workers

The findings have triggered condemnation from campaigners who point out that public money is being gifted to an industry that is already drowning in cash. 

Following the outbreak of the war in Iran, oil majors have reaped an eye-watering geopolitical windfall. In a single four-week window this spring, the combined market value of Shell, TotalEnergies, BP, Equinor, and Harbour Energy surged by £73.5 billion. 

In the 2025/26 financial year alone, oil and gas firms were handed £1.9 billion in tax breaks. Coincidentally, this is the same amount demanded last year by major trade unions to annually fund the Emergency Just Transition package – a scheme designed to create permanent, unionised renewable energy jobs for displaced fossil fuel workers. 

The narrative that drilling in the North Sea protects British jobs or national energy security has been debunked. The North Sea is a rapidly maturing basin, with around 90% of reserves “already drained dry”. Despite the Conservative government handing out hundreds of drilling licenses, UK oil and gas employment has halved over the past decade – from 441,000 in 2013 to just 213,00 in 2023. 

Furthermore, the hundreds of North Sea oil and gas licenses granted by the Conservatives over 14 years have yielded just 36 days of extra gas.

What else could the £13.3 billion have bought?

This heavy subsidisation of a declining sector stands in stark contrast to the explosive growth of the Net Zero sector. Recent research from CBI Economics shows that the green economy is vastly outstripping the wider economy on jobs, wages and growth – delivering economic benefits to the whole of the UK. 

Greenpeace analysis reveals how this squandered £13.3 billion could have been redirected to lower household energy bills, create high-quality green jobs, and decarbonise public infrastructure:

Investment area	What £13.3 billion of public money could buy
Clean power	1,680 onshore wind turbines (8.4 GW capacity). This could generate enough electricity to power 10 million UK homes annually.
Home insulation	3.57 million homes receiving insulation via the Great British InsulationScheme – enough to cover every fuel-poor household in England. DESNZ estimates there are (3.17 million) homes in fuel poverty in England.
Solar power for all hospitals and schools	Just a fifth of the budget – less than two years’ worth of tax breaks – would have been enough to provide on-site solar for: All 1,174 NHS hospital sites in England (cost £435 million to £775 million)All 21,600 state-funded schools in England (Cost: £1.56 to £2.06 billion)
Bill Support	Approximately 15 years of the £150 Warm Home Discount for all six million eligible households in Great Britain.
Air Source Heat Pumps	Fitting 1.77 million homes with an air source heat pump (at a cost of £7,500 per home which is the current figure under the Boiler Upgrade Scheme)

Rudy Schulkind, political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: 

“It is a moral and political failure that the UK government is still pouring billions into tax breaks for climate-wrecking fossil fuel giants while ordinary households struggle with soaring bills and growing climate chaos. 

“We’re being forced to subsidise an industry already reaping obscene profits at the expense of our own lives and livelihoods. The government must find the courage to scrap these handouts for the oil and gas giants driving this crisis and start funding a fair, net-zero future for us all.”

Connor Watt, Worker Organiser Representative from Platform said: 

“As this new analysis shows, this government could have been supporting oil and gas workers, but instead they have chosen to give tax breaks to profit-hungry oil and gas firms when ordinary people are struggling to pay their bills and workers are being hung out to dry.

“Workers have set out clearly what they need: investment that creates permanent, unionised renewable energy jobs in public and community-owned wind manufacturing, alongside job-creating investment in ports, and genuine support for oil and gas workers to transition into the industries of the future. It’s high time the government stood up to giant corporations and delivered for the working people of the UK.” 

ENDS

Notes to Editors

• While some of the tax reliefs detailed in this analysis are accessible to multiple industries, Greenpeace argues that subsidising fossil fuel extraction – a sector generating historic profits while driving climate breakdown – undermines the UK’s own climate goals, representing a regressive use of taxpayer funds during a cost of living crisis. 
• The £13.3 billion figure includes two types of producer relief: ring-fence first-year capital allowances for plant and machinery, and allowances against the supplementary charge (the Investment Allowance, the Cluster Area Allowance and the Onshore Allowance). These tax breaks are designed to incentivise oil and gas projects and encourage investment by permitting oil companies to deduct particular types of spending and investment from their tax bill.
• The analysis has excluded decommissioning tax relief from the £13.3bn figure, as Greenpeace UK is not calling for those reliefs to be scrapped.
• The government has stated that its COFFIS commitments include “Developing a national phase-out strategy for fossil fuel incentives and support measures within a clear timeline, by COP31.”

Methodology & References

The full methodology used for Greenpeace UK’s analysis is available upon request. Key data sources include:

1. Clean Power: Wind turbine figures utilise Arup’s capital cost index for DESNZ (July 2025).
2. Home insulation – Insulation metrics utilise the National Audit Office’s (NAO) assessment of ECO4 and the Great British Insulation Scheme (October 2025). 
3. NHS hospitals – Derived from the NHS Digital ERIC site dataset and typical solar capacity per site is taken from Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) case studies. (SOURCE Eddisons Education, Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS), accessed May 2026; corroborated by Hookway and conceptenergy.org. Salix Finance PSDS school case cards). 
4. Education – Based on the DfE Schools, pupils and their characteristics data and the PSDS evidence base. 
5. North Sea workers – Just Transition figures utilise the joint union coalition demand published May 2025. 
6. Bill Support – Warm Home Discount metrics use the official government statutory updates. 

Source: Amnesty International –

The widespread use of risk profiling systems by public authorities in law enforcement, social security and migration is incompatible with international human rights law and must be banned, Amnesty International said in a new report.

Risk profiling is the assessment of whether a person or group is likely to break a law or a rule. Governments use it to identify potential offenders before any offence has been committed. These assessments are increasingly being automated based on artificial intelligence techniques and, in many cases, have led to human rights violations. This is the first time that risk profiling has been comprehensively assessed against international human rights standards.

 “This report shows how risk profiling systems affects people’s rights and offers scientific and legal arguments that human rights advocates, civil servants, oversight authorities, lawyers and judges can use to contest the use of these systems by states and other entities,

Alexander Laufer, Amnesty International Netherlands Researcher on technology and human rights.

These systems have for example, been deployed in Denmark’s social benefits fraud investigations, France’s residence permit application system, the Netherlands’ social fraud detection system and Australia’s automated debt recovery scheme.  

Risk profiling systems are often cited as a method by which states can streamline services, improve cost-effectiveness, prevent crimes, including fraud, and control migration. These claims, based on the premise of scarce resources, have been debunked as a policy rationale, because they are empirically unsupported and politically useful assumptions that turn poverty and other social issues from political problems into an “efficiency” problem to be solved through automated rationing and surveillance.

Being targeted by risk profiling in high-stakes contexts like law enforcement, social security and immigration causes serious harms. People suffer psychological distress, stigmatization and false accusations of crime, potentially leading to homelessness, deportation, unfair denial of social benefits, or even imprisonment.

Source: Oxfam –