Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

ST. PETE’S BEACH, FLORIDA (November 13, 2025)—Greenpeace USA led peaceful interventions at the Underwater Minerals Conference, a gathering of deep sea mining (DSM) companies, government representatives, scientists, and others with ties to the industry. Activists distributed an informational flyer on the financial, environmental, and governance risks of deep sea mining, and an industry cocktail event featured Greenpeace USA’s customized “Don’t Mine the Deep” cocktail napkins designed to mimic the conference branding. 

Throughout the conference, Greenpeace USA repeatedly highlighted the industry’s potential noise pollution, which could harm whales and other marine life, by playing a series of sound interventions. The message culminated in a chorus of international voices — representing the 40 countries now calling for a moratorium on DSM — repeating the refrain: “Having trouble hearing? Whales will too,” and ending with the unified call: “Don’t Mine the Deep.”

Jackie Dragon, Greenpeace USA senior oceans campaigner, said: “Deep sea mining is a leaky ship taking on water — an infeasible industry built on hype, not science. It’s risky, unnecessary, and completely out of step with a sustainable future. After its ‘green transition’ claims collapsed, it’s now exploiting geopolitical fears to stay afloat. Instead of pouring capital into another extractive venture that pushes the limits of already stressed ecosystems, we should invest in proven, science-based solutions that protect the oceans and the communities that depend on them.”

A recent Greenpeace USA report found that the deep sea mining industry is exploiting geopolitical tensions to fast-track large-scale mineral extraction in one of the world’s most crucial and pristine frontiers. The Trump Administration, echoing the narrative of The Metals Company (TMC) — the industry’s most aggressive proponent — signed an executive order aimed at accelerating the launch of deep sea mining in both U.S. and international waters. TMC subsequently sought to capitalize on this development by applying for a commercial license under the 1980 U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) to commence mining in international waters. 

Both the executive order and application drew swift global backlash, including from France and China. Delegates at the ISA and the Secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho say that any unilateral action would “violate international law.” 

In addition to the 40 governments, civil society groups, and Pacific Indigenous communities that have called for a moratorium, ban, or pause on the industry, major global companies like Google and Apple have also pledged not to source or underwrite deep sea minerals, citing unacceptable environmental and financial risks.

Dragon continued: “No serious investor can ignore the growing public and private sector opposition to deep sea mining. It’s financially volatile, legally uncertain, and fundamentally incompatible with credible environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles. Ocean protection isn’t a ‘nice to have’ — it’s essential to sound risk management and the preservation of life on Earth. That reality, not short-sighted profit motives,  should anchor every industry discussion about the future of the oceans.”

Scientists warn that deep sea mining could devastate biodiversity, destroy habitats, and disrupt carbon cycles vital to planetary health. A recent study by the University of Hawaii found that mining waste in the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone could disrupt up to 60% of midwater marine life, threatening the food web and tuna fisheries that sustain many coastal communities throughout the Pacific and beyond.

Economic analyses reinforce these warnings. Planet Tracker estimates that DSM could result in over $500 billion in value destruction, including at least $465 billion in lost natural capital. The Ocean Foundation has also questioned the industry’s financial viability, noting that next-generation battery technology is rapidly reducing any potential demand for deep-sea metals.

For more information, read Greenpeace USA’s recent report, Deep Deception.

Greenpeace USA is a trade name of Greenpeace, Inc.

---

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

Greenpeace USA Press Desk: [email protected] 

Greenpeace USA 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 –

First-of-its-kind mapping with multi-country research reveals depth and scale of fossil fuel industry’s potential harm

520 million children globally live within 5km of fossil fuel infrastructure

Indigenous Peoples disproportionately affected

‘We are not after money; we only want what is ours. We just want to fish … it’s our right. And they are taking our rights’ – Bruno Alves de Vega, artisanal fisher

‘We must resist collectively and demand world leaders deliver on their obligations and commitments. Humanity must win’ – Agnès Callamard

At least 2 billion people globally – roughly a quarter of the world’s population – face risks to their health and livelihoods from fossil fuel infrastructure Amnesty International and Better Planet Laboratory said today in a new report on the fossil fuel industry’s harms to climate, people and ecosystems across the world.

The 163-page report, ‘Extraction Extinction: Why the lifecycle of fossil fuels threatens life, nature, and human rights’, demonstrates that the full lifecycle of fossil fuels destroys irreplaceable natural ecosystems and undermines human rights, particularly of those living near fossil fuel infrastructure.

Proximity to coal, oil and gas infrastructure has been proven to elevate risks of cancer, cardiovascular illness, adverse reproductive outcomes and other negative health outcomes. Amnesty partnered with Better Planet Laboratory, at the University of Colorado Boulder, for a first-of-its-kind mapping exercise to estimate the potential scale of global harm from existing and future sites for the production of fossil fuels.

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said:

“The ever-expanding fossil fuel industry is endangering billions of lives and irreversibly altering the climate system. Until now, there had been no global estimate of the number of people who live in close proximity to fossil fuel infrastructure. Our work together with Better Planet Laboratory reveals the scale of the massive risks posed by fossil fuels throughout their lifespan. Coal, oil and gas projects are driving climate chaos, harming people and nature. 

“This report provides yet more evidence of the imperative for states and corporate actors to ’defossilise’ the global economy to mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis on human rights. The age of fossil fuels must end now.”

Leading on research and global calculations, Better Planet Laboratory mapped the scale of exposure to fossil fuel infrastructure by overlaying data on the known locations of fossil fuel infrastructure sites with gridded population data, datasets that are indicators of critical ecosystems, data on global gridded daily emissions, and data on Indigenous Peoples’ land tenure. The findings are likely to underestimate the true global scales due to discrepancies in documentation of fossil fuel projects and limited census data across countries.

The report is also based on in-depth qualitative research conducted in partnership with Columbia Law School’s Smith Family Human Rights Clinic and includes interviews with more than 90 people, including those directly affected from artisanal fishing communities in Brazil (Guanabara Bay), Indigenous land defenders in Canada (Wet’suwet’en territory) and coastal communities in Senegal (Saloum Delta), academics, journalists, civil society organisations and government officials. It also uses open-source data and remote sensing to corroborate and visualise findings. These were complemented by the results and conclusions of previous research by Amnesty and ongoing campaigns against oil and gas giants in Ecuador, Colombia and Nigeria.

Staggering magnitudes of people at risk

At least 2 billion people live within 5km of more than 18,000 operating fossil fuel infrastructure sites distributed across 170 countries around the world. Of these, more than 520 million are estimated to be children and at least 463 million are living within 1km of the sites, exposing them to much higher environmental and health risks.  

Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately exposed, with more than 16% of global fossil fuel infrastructure sited on Indigenous territories. At least 32% of the existing fossil fuel sites mapped out overlapped with one or more ‘critical ecosystems.’*

The fossil fuel industry continues to expand, with more than 3,500 fossil fuel infrastructure sites either proposed, in development, or under construction globally. The figures suggest that such expansion could put at least 135 million additional people at risk. Notably, the number of oil and gas projects is set to increase across all continents while the number of coal plants and mines is increasing mostly in China and India.

Ginni Braich, a Senior Data Scientist at Better Planet Laboratory who led the paper underpinning the report’s global findings, said:

“Governments have pledged to phase out fossil fuels, but we now have clear evidence showing new fossil fuel projects continue to expand preferentially in our most critical ecosystems globally. This is a direct contradiction with stated climate goals.”

Human cost of fossil fuel production

“We’re experiencing intergenerational battle fatigue… We physically won’t survive [this]. We were never the instigators but we have taken the brunt of all the violence,” said Wet’suwet’en land defender Tsakë ze’ Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham), while describing the imminent construction of new compressors set to increase the profitability of the Coastal GasLink  pipeline in Canada.

Extracting, processing and transporting fossil fuels undermines the human rights of neighbouring communities and causes severe environmental degradation, health risks, and loss of culture and livelihood.

Some of the groups interviewed described extraction as a form of economic or cultural pillage, perpetrated by corporate actors through intimidation and coercion. “We are not after money; we only want what is ours. We just want to fish in Guanabara Bay, it’s our right. And they are taking our rights,” said Bruno Alves de Vega, an urban artisanal fisher from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

All environmental human rights and Indigenous land defenders interviewed by Amnesty faced severe safety and security risks, often stemming from disputes with companies whose activities threaten traditional ways of life and ecosystem integrity.

Beyond physical and online threats, states and corporate actors have relied on ‘lawfare’, abusing legal action, including criminal proceedings, to silence, delegitimise and intimidate defenders.

“When we rise up to defend the Yin’tah (Wet’suwet’en territory), we are criminalised. Civil injunctions are a colonial legal weapon that has become a mechanism for the militarisation of our community, criminalisation of our People, and for companies to carry out destructive extraction without Indigenous consent,” said other Wet’suwet’en land defenders.

Members of communities living close to fossil fuel infrastructure condemned the lack of direct and meaningful consultation and transparency from corporate actors. Many reported not fully understanding the scope of operators’ ongoing activities or expansion plans and stated that they had not consented to projects affecting their territory.

People interviewed by Amnesty in the Saloum Delta in Senegal raised concerns regarding the authorities’ and project operator Woodside’s (a major Australian fossil fuel company) poor dissemination of accessible information about the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Sangomar project.

Candy Ofime, Amnesty International’s Researcher and Legal Advisor on climate justice, said:

“These case studies are but a few examples of a globalised problem. Most affected groups condemned the power imbalance between their communities and corporate operators, as well as the lack of effective remedy.

“The fossil fuel era is inevitably coming to an end, and states must stop criminalising environmental human rights defenders fighting to protect their communities.

“Governments must investigate physical and online threats defenders face and put in place robust protection programmes to ensure critical voices advocating for an urgent and equitable energy transition can safely and meaningfully shape climate action.”

Destruction of irreplaceable natural ecosystems

Most of the projects documented created pollution hotspots, turning nearby communities and critical ecosystems into ‘sacrifice zones’.**

Exploration, processing, site development, transportation and decommissioning of fossil fuels caused or risked harming people and wildlife, led to severe pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and damaged key biodiversity areas or carbon sinks.

Despite commitments made under international climate agreements and repeated calls by the UN to urgently phase out fossil fuels, government actions have been wholly inadequate. Fossil fuels still account for 80% of the global primary energy supply, while the industry is intensifying efforts to exert undue influence in climate policy forums to prevent their rapid phase out.

“States should be embarking on a full, fast, fair and funded phase out of fossil fuels, and a just transition to renewable energy produced in a manner consistent with human rights. Amnesty International urgently calls for the adoption and implementation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty,” said Callamard.

“The fossil fuel industry and its state sponsors have argued for decades that human development requires fossil fuels. But we know that under the guise of economic growth, they have served instead greed and profits without red lines, violated rights with near-complete impunity and destroyed the atmosphere, biosphere and oceans. Against these continuing patterns, against the global fossil fuel political economy of repression, we must resist collectively and demand that world leaders deliver on their obligations and commitments. Humanity must win.”

Amnesty wrote to the companies mentioned in this research and their responses have been incorporated in the report.

 

*Critical ecosystems: natural environments that are rich in biodiversity, critical for carbon sequestration and/or where continued environmental degradation or disasters would trigger cascading ecosystem collapse. 

** Sacrifice zone: a heavily contaminated area where low-income and marginalised groups bear the disproportionate burden of exposure to pollution and toxic substances. 

Source: Amnesty International –

View latest press releases

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (November 13, 2025) — The case of a group of Indonesian fishers who sued U.S. tuna brand Bumble Bee, alleging forced labor, will move forward, according to a judgment released by the Southern California federal district court yesterday. Their case, which cites years of research from the Greenpeace global network, alleges years of forced labor while catching fish sold by the company.

Syafi’i, a plaintiff in the case, said: “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.”

The four fishers filed suit against Bumble Bee in March 2025 under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Investigations and supply chain research from the Greenpeace global network’s Beyond Seafood fisheries campaigns were used by the litigants’ attorneys to support this complaint. It is believed to be the first case of its kind against the seafood industry in the U.S., and one of only a few TVPRA supply chain cases to move past the motion to dismiss stage. 

Sari Heidenreich, Senior Human Rights Advisor, Greenpeace USA, said: “This is a historic moment and an incredible victory for the fishers and the ocean. By allowing this case to move ahead, the court has given these fishers’ voices the space they deserve. We celebrate that the fishers will be allowed their day in court, recognizing this is monumental —  not only for these four men, who are brave enough to stand up to a giant U.S. corporation —  but for hundreds of thousands of fishers globally.”

The court ruled that the fishers presented sufficient allegations of forced labor as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, noting that Bumble Bee did not contest the fishers were subject to forced labor. The court also found that Bumble Bee “likely had ‘notice about the prevalence’ of forced labor on the vessels from which it sourced tuna, ‘failed to take adequate steps to train staff in order to prevent its occurrence,’” had an “active role in obtaining albacore tuna from the vessels on which Plaintiffs were subject to forced labor,” and resold the tuna for profit. 

Heidenreich continued: “This ruling once again affirms that U.S. companies have a responsibility to ensure the products they sell — including tuna that they market for you to pack for lunch — were not produced with the abhorrent crimes of forced labor and modern slavery. Allegations as horrific as those in the suit should never happen to these fishers or anyone else.  Seafood companies cannot continue to put profits over all else; they cannot continue this rabid exploitation of workers, the oceans, and marine life. They must act now to address the root causes of modern slavery and end isolation at sea. The global Greenpeace network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has been working for over a decade to hold Big Seafood to account. It is an affirmation of the importance of this work that the campaign’s reports documenting these abuses were cited by the judge in her ruling.” 

The judge’s ruling also cited numerous reports from Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Southeast Asia as evidence that the company knew or should have known about forced labor on its supplying vessels. [1] 

Arifsyah Nasution, Global Project Lead for Beyond Seafood Campaign, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said: “With this ruling, all of Big Seafood is officially on notice: exploitation at sea could land you in court at home. It is well known that physical violence, excessive working hours, and lack of payment — all conditions alleged in this lawsuit — are prevalent in the fishing industry and exacerbated by the overexploitation of our oceans.”

The Greenpeace global network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has called for concerted action by all stakeholders and governments along the seafood supply chain to end isolation at sea. This includes:

• Free, accessible, and secure Wi-Fi on all fishing vessels to allow fishers to have contact with their families, unions, and governments.
• Capping time at sea at three months to reduce the risk of human rights abuse, forced labor, and human trafficking.
• 100% human or electronic observer coverage to ensure vital data on catch composition, bycatch, interactions with protected species, and overall fishing practices are reported by independent and impartial parties.

Freedom of association and access to unions for workers are key enabling rights to ensure a strong worker voice and protections across the various stages of the supply chain. It is essential to have accessible grievance mechanisms, including those available at sea, that are secure and responsive. These mechanisms should allow workers to raise issues as they arise, and companies must respond promptly, providing remedies and directly addressing the root causes of the problems. 

The lawsuit, Akhmad v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00583, was filed in March 2025 in U.S. federal court in San Diego, California, and is currently before chief judge Cynthia Bashant. In addition to Greenpeace Inc., the plaintiffs in the suit are represented by the law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.

---

Photos and videos are available in the Greenpeace Media Library

[1] Fake My Catch: The Unreliable Traceability in our Tuna Cans

Choppy Waters: Forced Labour and Illegal Fishing in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries

Forced Labour at Sea: The Case of Indonesian Migrant Fishers

Contacts:

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

Vela Andapita, Global Communications Coordinator, Beyond Seafood campaign, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, +62 817 5759 449 (UTC+8), [email protected]   

Greenpeace USA Press Desk: [email protected] Greenpeace International

Press Desk, +31 (0) 20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), [email protected]

Source: Amnesty International –

The digital world can be difficult to navigate, especially for young people. While it promises connection and belonging, it is full of risks, including potential harassment and violence.

On World Kindness Day, activist Paloma Navarro Candia, 19, from Argentina, shares how she’s protecting herself online, with the support of Amnesty International’s new workbook, Staying Resilient While Trying to Save the World Vol. 3.

The promise of a digital future still leaves behind those who need it most. My goal is to ensure that all children and adolescents can access and grow within safe, equitable, and sustainable digital spaces because digital transformation must also be a human transformation.

I was 11 when I discovered Amino, a social network that promised connection and belonging. At first, it felt like a refuge, but soon I saw how unsafe it could be. There was bullying, no real content moderation, and strangers much older than me sending inappropriate messages. My parents wanted to help, but they didn’t know how to.

The digital world was still new, confusing, and full of risks. That experience shaped my activism: it showed me that the Internet doesn’t change on its own, it needs people who question, humanize, and rebuild it.

For me, working for digital rights means creating spaces where technology amplifies possibilities to learn and participate without fear. As technology evolves, our rights must evolve too.

Digital rights in Argentina

In Argentina, young people face intertwined structural inequalities. Access to technology is still unequal, especially in rural or low-income areas. Many depend on public Wi-Fi or shared devices to study. And while misinformation and online violence continues to circulate and spread, the policies needed to address these risks are lagging behind.

The lack of comprehensive sex education leaves many adolescents vulnerable to misinformation about their rights and relationships, while hate speech and adultcentrism continue to silence youth voices. Economic instability only deepens this crisis, shaping our (lack of) opportunities.

Recently, my work on Nuestro Voto Cuenta (“Our Vote Counts”), a campaign on youth voting and disinformation supporting first-time voters across Argentina, revealed how hate speech and online hostility often discourage young people from participating in public life. Many of us also fall into cycles of misinformation fuelled by the addictive nature of social media. For activists, this reality is even more intense, constant exposure to distressing news leaves emotional traces that are hard to erase.

Teaching digital empathy

One of my main concerns is how the Internet affects our emotional well-being: the pressure to be constantly available, the new forms of violence in digital spaces, and the exposure to hate all shape how we see ourselves. Many of my friends have faced harassment, body shaming, or manipulation online. I’ve seen how these experiences silently damage self-esteem, trust and fuel shame. That’s why I believe we must not only teach digital literacy but also digital empathy, because the Internet should connect us and care for us by design.

I’ve learned that activism must include rest because caring for others begins with caring for yourself.

Paloma Navarro Candia

Being a young activist today is both empowering and exhausting. Information never stops, and the pressure to act, post, and respond can be overwhelming. There’s a constant sense of not doing enough.

I’ve learned that activism must include rest because caring for others begins with caring for yourself. Protecting mental health isn’t a luxury; it’s what makes long-term change possible. Activism is a marathon, not a sprint. When we protect our well-being, we lead with clarity, empathy and hope. For me, this means setting digital boundaries, learning to disconnect without guilt, and trusting others. Writing helps me process emotions and reminds me why I started.

Staying resilient

One of the projects closest to my heart is Staying Resilient While Trying to Save the World Vol. 3, a workbook created by and for young changemakers. It’s a companion that reminds us how emotional sustainability is part of activism. I contributed a chapter on Internet and mental health, exploring how digital environments influence our emotions. Social media can be overwhelming, but it also offers space to connect, create and find support. I wrote another chapter on gender-based digital violence based on the inspiring case of Olimpia, to show how to stay safe online, set boundaries, and understand that the Internet is not neutral – it shapes how we connect and how we heal.

Young people should read the new workbook Staying Resilient While Trying to Save The World, Vol 3, because it’s tailored to under 18s and reminds us that we’re not alone. Resilience isn’t about enduring everything, it’s about finding strength in connection. It invites activists to be honest about their struggles, to set limits, and to keep fighting with kindness toward others and toward themselves. When used with empathy and awareness, technology can amplify connection instead of division. Digital citizenship isn’t just about being online; it’s about participating with kindness, learning from one another, and building a more just, compassionate world together.

Connecting children with human rights leaders

Amnesty International has played a key role in empowering young activists like me. It offers tools, mentorship, and global networks that help transform ideas into real impact. Through training in campaign strategy and advocacy, Amnesty connects children, adolescents and youth with experienced human rights leaders and ensures that our voices aren’t just heard, they’re trusted. I believe in the power of alliances that cross borders, in the voices that multiply when they work together, and in futures built with empathy, knowledge, and shared purpose.

Over time, I’ve learned that leadership isn’t about having the loudest voice, it’s about active listening. My conviction is simple: ideas only matter when they become action and action only transforms when it begins with dialogue.

Staying Resilient While Trying To Save The World, Volume 1 and Volume 2 are also available to read.  

Source: Amnesty International –

Language used maybe offensive to some readers 

• Thousands of NYPD records secured by the rights groups detail expansive and unlawful surveillance of protesters, and Black, Indigenous and People of Colour communities. 

Records obtained by Amnesty International and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a New York-based privacy and civil rights group, after a five-year long lawsuit against the New York Police Department (NYPD) reveal concerning surveillance abuses against protesters and communities of colour, including the frequent use of rights-violating facial recognition technology.  

Analysis by Amnesty International and the S.T.O.P. of the over 2,700 documents to date reveals that facial recognition technologies (FRT) were used on several occasions by the NYPD, subjecting New Yorkers to invasive, flawed, and deeply discriminatory surveillance technologies. 

The documents further revealed that the technology had been used to identify individuals based on unsolicited reports by the public that deemed certain individuals suspicious on the basis of speaking a different language or wearing culturally distinctive attire. 

“New York promises to be a sanctuary city, but we’ve created nothing short of a surveillance state, 

Michelle Dahl, Executive Director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

“These costly, error-prone, and biased technologies are wasting billions of dollars. NYPD surveillance puts our neighbors at risk of false arrest, deportation, or even worse. It’s long past time that New Yorkers should see the dystopian ways that the NYPD watches all of us. Now is the moment for lawmakers to take action and hold the NYPD accountable, outlawing facial recognition and imposing true civilian oversight.” 

Facial recognition violates the right to privacy through mass image data scraping without knowledge and consent. It’s plagued by racial bias, disproportionately targeting Black and Brown communities, and suppresses peaceful protest and free expression through its chilling effect. For these reasons, hundreds of organizations consider the technology unlawful. Amnesty International and S.T.O.P. have long called for a ban on the use, development, production, and sale, of facial recognition technology for identification and mass surveillance by law enforcement and other government agencies.  

In its analysis of the disclosures, the groups found that NYPD surveillance frequently puts marginalized communities at risk. NYPD records also documented the profiling of New Yorkers based on language, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics. 

Initial findings from the disclosures of more than 2,700 NYPD documents show that:  

• By 17 April 2020, the NYPD had already spent more than $5 million on facial recognition technology between 2019 and 2020, and is spending at least $100,000 more every year. 

• The NYPD stopped tracking facial recognition accuracy in 2015 after finding the error rate was too high. 

• NYPD Officers conspired with the US Marshalls Service to illicitly contract a controversial facial recognition firm to surveil a private Instagram account, in violation of the Department’s facial recognition policy.  

• On 31 December 2019, facial recognition was used by the NYPD to target New Yorkers who were using slang to describe Times Square on social media, including: “NYE in Times Square is da BOMB,” in a clear overly broad and dangerous violation of the right to freedom of expression, and in a manner that ignores cultural and linguistic context.  

• The NYPD has used facial recognition and selective enforcement against certain NYPD critics, such as on 1 February 2020 when they seemingly identified and arrested one person for “FTP” graffiti art, a common abbreviation for “fuck the police,” against the backdrop of heightened protest and dissent against police brutality.  

• New Yorkers were racially profiled by the NYPD, and two men were wrongly targeted by facial recognition  at the New Year’s Eve celebration in Time Square on 31 December 2019, for not dancing and speaking a Middle Eastern language. The report prompting the facial recognition query stated: “They had no females with them, were not dancing like everyone else and they gave everyone an uneasy feeling… At one point one went in the bathroom and was yelling on his phone in a Middle Eastern language.”   

• On 3 June 2020, the NYPD targeted a “controversial protestor on twitter” for political speech, even though they acknowledged the lack of exigent circumstance or any threats and resolved to continue monitoring all of their social media accounts, regardless. 

• On 5 June 2020, the NYPD deployed facial recognition to identify a Black Lives Matter protester for hyperbolically writing “cops should die” in a social media post.  

• On 22 April 2020, the NYPD used facial recognition to identify two singers purely because of content in their music video, effectively subjecting artists to a virtual line-up and violating their free expression.  

“The disclosures demonstrate multiple instances of discrimination and abuse, using facial recognition, which reinforce what our previous research has consistently shown to be a disregard for the safety of Black and Brown communities in New York City, 

Matt Mahmoudi, Researcher & Advisor on AI and Human Rights at Amnesty International.

“The NYPD has avoided scrutiny for too long and has benefited from a lack of transparency to unlawfully invest in and use facial recognition to curb people’s rights to privacy, equality and non-discrimination, and freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.”    

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Greenpeace South Asia Exposes A Pattern Of Safety Lapses, Environmental Violations, And Liability Avoidance By MSC

The investigative report reveals how MSC’s use of ageing vessels, regulatory loopholes, and flag-of-convenience practices have repeatedly led to environmental accountability shortfalls in South Asia.

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 13 November, 2025: Greenpeace South Asia released a new investigation report, “Below Deck: The Truth Beneath What You Sea (Mediterranean Shipping Company — MSC)”, highlighting a corporate model that contains incident liability and externalizes environmental and social costs onto weaker jurisdictions in the Global South. In light of the systematic gaps noted in the report and the recent MSC ELSA 3 shipwreck disaster off the coast of Kerala, Greenpeace urges MSC to comply with the Kerala High Court’s order directing the company to pay ₹1,227 crore as a compensation security deposit. Meanwhile earlier today, a team of volunteers has finalized the delivery of over 8000 petition and postcard signatures to the MSC headquarters, asking the company to pay the compensation for the damages it has caused.

The investigative report traces how MSC became the world’s largest container carrier by expanding rapidly while deploying ageing, second-hand vessels to South Asian routes under flags of convenience, thus reducing costs and limiting incident liability, as part of a double standard pattern that has repeatedly shifted the burden of environmental risk onto developing nations. Besides, the report notes that despite commitments to ‘sustainable recycling’, MSC continues to systematically dispose of ageing ships in South Asian beaching yards, notably in India, but also Bangladesh and Pakistan, where conditions are notoriously hazardous for both workers and the environment.

Recently, MSC also announced plans to reflag 12 vessels under the Indian registry followed by discussions between MSC CEO Søren Toft and Prime Minister Narendra Modi during India Maritime Week 2025. However, Greenpeace notes that such expansion must come with strict compliance to environmental and safety norms, especially given MSC’s recent record of negligence and ecological harm in South Asian waters.

The MSC ELSA 3, a Liberia-flagged vessel with a known history of safety deficiencies, sank off the Kerala coast in May 2025, spilling oil, chemicals, and massive amounts of plastic pellets that devastated marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods. On 25th September, the Kerala High Court recognized the scale of ecological and economic damage and upheld the detention of another MSC vessel, MSC AKITETA II, until the security compensation deposit is paid.

Greenpeace emphasizes that the company must promptly comply with the court order, and in the meantime, that the Kerala government should act urgently to ensure that compensation funds can reach affected communities as soon as possible, through a transparent and inclusive mechanism. Impacted communities across the affected coastline have already raised concerns over being left out of formal claim processes due to lack of documentation.

“The double standard measures taken by MSC to evade accountability are now clear. This cannot go on in our country,” said Amruta S.N., Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace India. “The Kerala High Court’s order is a landmark step towards corporate liability, but justice will only be real when every affected fishworker and family receives fair compensation. The state must create a decentralized, accessible claims system to ensure that no one is left behind.”

The investigative report’s findings reaffirm a global governance challenge where powerful shipping corporations continue to externalize the social and ecological costs of maritime trade to vulnerable coastal regions. The MSC ELSA 3 case, however, marks a turning point, where legal, civic, and community action could finally hold one of the world’s largest shipping giants accountable.

Please read the investigative report here: 

For media inquiries:

Amruta S.N.,
[email protected]
Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace India

Nibedita Saha,
[email protected]
Media Officer, Greenpeace India |

Source: Oxfam –

Today, Oxfam and activist partners at COP30 delivered over a million signatures of a petition demanding that the super-rich pay for climate damages to Brazil’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Marina Silva. The petition is part of the ‘Make Rich Polluters Pay’ global civil society campaign, which calls on governments to tax those who hold outsized responsibility for driving carbon emissions.  

“Handing over this petition to Minister Marina Silva is a crucial step to demand that those who accelerated the climate crisis take responsibility and that resources actually reach those who suffer the most from climate change,” said climate activist Érica Monteiro, who is from the Itacoã Miri quilombo in Pará, Brazil. “Being here at COP30 means fighting to uplift the voices of traditional communities in decision-making spaces. We must ensure justice for populations like our quilombola people who have historically been made invisible, but who are on the frontlines of protecting the territories of the Amazon.” 

The petition was delivered in the Blue Zone by Viviana Santiago, Executive Director of Oxfam Brasil, as well as Monteiro and the other activists from the Make Rich Polluters Pay campaign: Grace Mali (Tuvalu), Hilda Nakabuye (Uganda), and Pavel Martiarena (Peru).  

The campaign’s most recent report, “Climate Plunder: How a powerful few are locking the world into disaster,” found that the richest 0.1% emit more carbon pollution in a day than someone from the poorest 50% emits in a year. The findings were cited by President Lula in his speech at the opening plenary of COP30. A key political solution proposed by the report is a progressive tax on the richest 1%, which could raise up to US$9 trillion to fund renewable energy and climate adaptation. 

“The super-rich are the main ones responsible for the climate crisis, so it is a matter of justice that they pay for it,” said Santiago. “We need this small elite that pollutes the most and has profited the most to finance a just transition and pay for the climate damages that are already happening in the most vulnerable countries. Minister Marina Silva has been a fundamental voice in placing this debate at the center of the negotiations.” 

Source: Amnesty International –

One of the girls who sued the Ecuadorian government to end gas flaring in the Amazon will attend the environmental summit to demand that the court ruling be enforced.

By: Leonela Moncayo

I was born in the Ecuadorian Amazon. My house faces an oil well. While other girls grew up with a view of mountains or parks, looked out at fiery monsters. Rather than the sunrise over the treetops, I saw the flame of a gas flare that never went out. 

For as long as I can remember, the air has smelled of smoke. Sometimes, while playing, I smelled an odour of burnt plastic. My friends and I thought this was normal, that it was just how the jungle smelled. I later realized that it wasn’t natural. It was pollution.

For as long as I can remember, the air has smelled of smoke. Sometimes, while playing, I smelled an odour of burnt plastic. My friends and I thought this was normal, that it was just how the jungle smelled. I later realized that it wasn’t natural. It was pollution.

Since I was very little, I have seen how oil extraction harms nature, spoiling the beauty of the plants, animals and water. I have also watched as people in my community and family fall ill. What hurts the most is the feeling that no one has taken responsibility for causing so much harm.

Living next to an active oil well changes your life.

When I was 11 years old, I went on a trip organized by the Union of People Affected by Texaco’s Oil Operations (UDAPT). The goal of the trip, which we called the “toxic tour,” was to show the impacts of oil extraction. I remember standing under a flare releasing gases that heat up the atmosphere, like methane, which traps 84 times more heat than CO₂. I looked at the ground and my heart clenched: there were thousands of dead and charred insects. Tiny, lifeless bodies. 

That’s when I knew I had to do something. 

I banded together with other girls and young people. With the support of UDAPT and the collective Eliminen los Mecheros, Enciendan la Vida [Remove the Flares, Ignite Life], we sued the Ecuadorian state to get rid of gas flares and protect our rights. And we won: the court ordered the state to put out those giant flames. 

We were girls, not experts. But we had the strongest thing: the truth. The court agreed with us, but its ruling did not bring justice.

To this day, the flares continue to burn.

***

Defending nature as young women has its consequences. When we try to give the world a true picture of the pollution and assault on human rights and nature, the first thing we get is criticism. Many do not want the truth to come to light. And it is worse when those of us speaking out are still legally children.

Defending nature as young women has its consequences. When we try to give the world a true picture of the pollution and assault on human rights and nature, the first thing we get is criticism. Many do not want the truth to come to light. And it is worse when those of us speaking out are still legally children.

They are always telling us that we are being manipulated by adults or that we are throwing a tantrum.

Several times police and military personnel — following government orders — have blocked roads to keep us from reaching meetings with authorities.

In February 2024, my family and I were victims of an attack. They tossed an explosive device into the entrance to my house. It had a piece of paper with a phrase on it, but the fire burned it up. They wanted to silence me.
Despite the insults, roadblocks and violence, we remain strong, courageous and determined to protect our rights and those of nature. 

Because if we do not, who will?

***

Being at the most important climate summit, the COP30 in Belém, Brazil, says to the world that there can be no talk of climate action while the Amazon continues to burn. This is the first COP in the Amazon, and that has to mean something. 

I did not come to Belém to ask for favours. I came to demand that the Ecuadorian state comply with the court ruling. I also came to remind all states to respect human rights and that caring for the environment is not an expense — it is the best social and cultural investment a government can make. 

Allowing pollution and rights violations is not a show of political strength; it’s a show of indifference.

By allowing climate inaction and pollution, world leaders — including the Ecuadorian authorities — are destroying the lives of humans and of thousands of species of plants and animals. 

The mestizo and Indigenous girls and young women of the Amazon are not usually heard in the media, but we have a voice, and our fire burns brighter than that of any oil well. 

We call ourselves Warriors for the Amazon.

We call ourselves Warriors for the Amazon.

If we can get everyone to understand the importance of climate justice, we can restore the Amazon. We can reforest its lands, restore its natural areas, let animals return to their habitat, and ensure that rivers run clean once again.

No one can silence us or force us to keep our mouth shut in the face of injustice. Courage is a skill we build through our actions. Defending our rights is a shield of strength that we are creating. Each and every person can create their own.

We all have that power.

Source: Amnesty International –

View latest press releases