Search Climate Insights Directory

The document criticizes the financing of the Stade LNG terminal in Germany, arguing that such projects create an unnecessary dependence on fossil gas and contradict climate goals. It highlights a disconnect between banks' public climate commitments and their continued funding of LNG import and export infrastructure.

Between 2021 and 2023, commercial banks in G7 countries provided US$101 billion to the coal industry, with American and Japanese banks contributing over US$73 billion. The report highlights that this financing exceeds the G7-led pledges for Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) and calls for stricter capital requirements and prohibitions to ensure a phase-out aligned with 1.5°C goals.

Between 2021 and 2023, commercial banks from G7 countries provided $101 billion to the coal industry, with US and Japanese banks leading the funding. The report highlights that this financing far exceeds the G7-led funding promised for Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) in developing nations. It criticizes the G7's goal of phasing out coal by the first half of the 2030s as insufficient to meet the 1.5°C warming limit and calls for strict capital requirements and bans on coal developers.

An analysis by Reclaim Finance and RIFT finds that most French life insurers continue to fund fossil fuel expansion through 'fonds euro' and 'unités de compte', with over 55% of 'responsible' or 'ESG' labeled funds exposed to fossil fuel developers.

The report finds a significant gap between the climate commitments of French life insurers and their actual investment practices. While most have pledged to stop funding new coal projects in their 'fonds euro', many continue to invest in oil and gas expansion. A critical 'blind spot' exists in 'unités de compte' (UC), where 63% of analyzed funds contain fossil fuel developers, including in products labeled as 'responsible' or 'ESG'. The report calls for regulators to mandate an 'eco-score' and extend ISR labeling to 'fonds euro' to protect savers from greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance highlights the contradiction between the values promoted by French banks through sports sponsorships and their continued financial support for fossil fuel expansion. The report details the funding provided by BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, and BPCE to oil and gas companies and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects between 2021 and 2024, asserting that such investments are incompatible with the Paris Agreement and IPCC guidelines.

The report evaluates the transition plans of Enel, ENGIE, EPH, Iberdrola, and Statkraft, finding that none have committed to phasing out fossil gas power in Europe or the OECD by 2035. While Iberdrola and Statkraft are highlighted as following better practices by focusing on sustainable power solutions, EPH is identified as an industry laggard with a strategy heavily reliant on coal and gas. Enel and ENGIE are described as having conflicting strategies that combine renewable growth with continued fossil gas development and reliance on immature technologies like hydrogen and CCUS. The analysis emphasizes that current CAPEX allocations for several utilities remain too high for fossil fuels to meet the IEA's Net-zero Emissions by 2050 scenario.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a draft French decree that would allow employee savings plans to include funds with labels that do not strictly exclude fossil fuel expansion. The organization highlights that 84% of current employee savings funds invest in companies incompatible with the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario and urges the government to align all eligible labels—including CIES, Finansol, and Relance—with the stricter exclusion criteria of the ISR and Greenfin labels.

The document highlights a gap between net zero commitments and the actual financing of coal phaseouts, noting that commercial banks provided US$470 billion to the coal industry between 2021 and 2023. It argues that internal bank policies and financed emission targets are not valid excuses for inaction, as institutions can create specific carve-outs for decommissioning. The author proposes a new "phaseout emissions" category to track support for coal retirements without penalizing overall portfolio targets and urges the public sector to lead pilot projects and provide concessional financing to demonstrate the viability of just coal phaseouts.

The BOCC authors clarify that Barclays was given multiple opportunities to review deal information and methodology prior to the 2024 report's publication. They explain that differences in reported financing increases stem from BOCC's use of a more rigorous approach for diversified companies, which uses activity-based data from annual reports and Bloomberg rather than simple industry classifications.

Reclaim Finance is calling for shareholders to vote against the re-election of TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné at the May 24, 2024, Annual General Meeting. The organization argues that the company's strategy of developing new fossil fuel projects is incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit and that management has ignored climate-related shareholder resolutions. Reclaim Finance highlights that TotalEnergies was the world's sixth-largest upstream oil and gas developer in 2023 and plans to allocate only 33% of capital expenditure to its low carbon and power division through 2028, while distributing 3.4 dollars to shareholders for every dollar invested in its integrated power business in 2023.

Reclaim Finance is calling for shareholders to vote against the reelection of TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné at the May 24, 2024 general meeting. The organization argues that the company's strategy is incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, noting that TotalEnergies was the sixth largest oil and gas developer globally in 2023. The document highlights a gap in investment, stating that only 33% of investments in the 2028 plan are allocated to the "electricity and new molecules" division, while 3.4 dollars were distributed to shareholders for every dollar invested in electricity in 2023. Reclaim Finance further claims that the company ignores climate-related shareholder resolutions, citing a 2023 resolution for Paris Agreement alignment that received 30.4% support but resulted in no significant action, followed by a plan to increase annual oil production by 2 to 3% by 2028.

The 2024 Banking on Climate Chaos report reveals that the 60 largest global banks committed $705.8 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2023, with $347.5 billion directed toward companies with active expansion plans. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the worst financier of fossil fuels, while Japanese megabanks like Mizuho and MUFG are prominent in methane gas (LNG) financing. The report highlights significant policy gaps, noting that many banks use intensity-based metrics rather than absolute emissions targets and that some North American banks have rolled back previous exclusions for coal and Arctic oil and gas. It argues that current 'net zero' targets often serve as loopholes for continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly in Southeast Asia.

Reclaim Finance claims that ArcelorMittal uses the low-carbon recycled steel of the Paris 2024 Olympic flame to mask a global strategy that continues to build coal-fired blast furnaces. The organization highlights that four major French banks—BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, and BPCE—provided nearly 13 billion US$ to the company between 2016 and June 2023, urging them to adopt stricter sectoral policies to end financing for new coal-based steel projects and the companies that develop them.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ArcelorMittal for using the Paris 2024 Olympic flame, made from recycled steel, to mask a broader business strategy that relies on coal for 71% of its production and the use of carbon capture technologies. The report highlights that between 2016 and June 2023, four French banks—Crédit Agricole, BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and BPCE—provided nearly $12 billion in financing to the steelmaker. The author calls for these banks to adopt robust sectoral policies to restrict financing for new blast furnaces and companies developing metallurgical coal projects.

The document argues that the EU's ecological footprint is unsustainable, noting that the region uses between 70% and 97% of the world's 'safe operating space' despite having less than 6% of the global population. The authors call for the acceleration of the European Green Deal, increased public investment in climate and social goals, and strengthened civil society participation to avoid ecological collapse and economic instability.

The document marks the 2024 EU Earth Overshoot Day, noting that the EU exhausted its nature budget for the year on May 3, 2024. It urges EU leaders to make the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution a major political priority ahead of the European elections, citing the devastating impacts of climate-related events on health, economies, and social justice.

The report finds that Chevron's strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy. Its projected 2030 production levels and LNG capacity exceed NZE requirements, while its diversification efforts are described as marginal and focused on unsustainable energies like bioenergy and fossil-fuel-based hydrogen.

The report concludes that ExxonMobil's strategy prioritizes fossil fuel expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy investments. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly exceed the limits required to align with a 1.5°C pathway. Furthermore, the report highlights a lack of scope 3 emissions targets and a diversification strategy that relies on unsustainable energies like blue hydrogen and biofuels.

The document provides a comparative analysis of French banks' commitments to cease financing new hydrocarbon projects. It details specific exclusions for upstream exploration and production and midstream infrastructure, noting that many banks apply restrictive criteria—such as limiting exclusions to non-conventional LNG or specific production-linked infrastructure—rather than comprehensive bans.