Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report finds that Carlyle and NGP have significant exposure to transition risk, with a large portion of their planned capital expenditure for upstream oil and gas projects incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goals. It argues that Carlyle's 'net zero' targets are insufficient because they exclude Scope 3 emissions and minority investments, and suggests that investors push for stronger transition planning and transparency.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Carlyle's portfolio is more exposed to transition risk than nearly all major oil companies, with a significant amount of planned capital expenditure only viable in a higher temperature (2.5°C) scenario.
  • Carlyle subsidiary NGP Energy Capital also shows high transition risk, with less than 30% of its portfolio companies' potential project options aligning with a 1.65°C low-carbon world.
  • Neither Carlyle nor NGP have investments fully aligned with the Paris Agreement; most analyzed portfolio companies would need to reduce oil and gas production volumes to align with a Net Zero Emissions (1.5°C) scenario.
  • Despite IEA guidance that no new projects are needed for a 1.5°C scenario, Carlyle and NGP-backed companies have earmarked over $132 billion in capital expenditure for future unsanctioned projects, including $48 billion viable only in high-fossil-demand worlds.
  • Carlyle's 'net zero' target for portfolio companies is not aligned with the Paris Agreement because it excludes minority investments and Scope 3 emissions, the latter of which account for 85% of emissions associated with oil and gas production.
  • Private equity firms like Carlyle face higher transition risk than public market investors because their typical business model of holding assets for 5 years or more prevents them from offloading exposure quickly as valuations fall.

Cite the original document

APA
Global Energy Monitor (2022). CARLYLE’S UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS & THE ENERGY TRANSITION. https://globalenergymonitor.org/sites/default/files/migration/reports/CTI_Report_CarlylesUpstream_EnergyInvestments_Dec2022_11.pdf
Chicago
Global Energy Monitor. CARLYLE’S UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS & THE ENERGY TRANSITION. 2022. https://globalenergymonitor.org/sites/default/files/migration/reports/CTI_Report_CarlylesUpstream_EnergyInvestments_Dec2022_11.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Global Energy Monitor |title=CARLYLE’S UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS & THE ENERGY TRANSITION |date=December 2022 |url=https://globalenergymonitor.org/sites/default/files/migration/reports/CTI_Report_CarlylesUpstream_EnergyInvestments_Dec2022_11.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{globalenergymonitor2022carlyles, author = {{Global Energy Monitor}}, title = {{CARLYLE’S UPSTREAM INVESTMENTS \& THE ENERGY TRANSITION}}, institution = {Global Energy Monitor}, year = {2022}, month = dec, url = {https://globalenergymonitor.org/sites/default/files/migration/reports/CTI_Report_CarlylesUpstream_EnergyInvestments_Dec2022_11.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated