Search Climate Insights Directory

Between 2021 and 2024, European banks provided US$41.9 billion to companies developing over 320 new gas power plants globally, with 63% of this funding coming from a small group of French and UK banks. The report links gas reliance to electricity price volatility, air pollution causing premature deaths, and the climate crisis, urging banks to shift funding from gas expansion to renewables.

The document argues that financial institutions (FIs) have a responsibility to stop financing activities that drive biodiversity degradation, particularly fossil fuel activities. It proposes a minimum foundation of scientific frameworks—centered on Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and supplemented by marine and carbon-critical ecosystem frameworks—to define 'no-go zones' where fossil fuel projects should be strictly prohibited. The note emphasizes that existing protected area statuses are often insufficient for effective conservation and suggests the implementation of buffer zones (10 km terrestrial, 50 km marine) to mitigate the wider impact radius of fossil fuel activities.

Between 2021 and 2024, 24 major European banks provided US$41.9 billion to companies developing new gas plants, with 63% of this funding coming from seven banks in France and the UK. The report contends that gas power is not a 'transition fuel' but a source of severe air pollution, price volatility, and long-term greenhouse gas emissions lock-in. It highlights that 78% of this financing is directed toward OECD and European countries, where power sectors are expected to be carbon neutral by 2035. The document concludes that banks must immediately end financial services to gas power expansion to align with a 1.5°C warming limit.

Between 2021 and 2025, 19 major European banks facilitated 216 bond issuances for oil and gas developers, raising 219 billion euros. The report highlights that 2025 saw the highest number of such issuances, with Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BBVA, Santander, and Standard Chartered as the top facilitators. It argues that bond markets have become a critical funding source for fossil fuel expansion and criticizes the 'facilitated emissions' formulas used in bank climate policies as inadequate, urging a shift toward 'sector portfolio financing volume' (SPFV) targets and total exclusion policies across the entire value chain.

Reclaim Finance and co-signatories argue that TotalEnergies has failed to adequately address concerns regarding the Papua LNG project, citing lack of transparency in climate and human rights assessments, failures in obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous Peoples, and insufficient evaluation of biodiversity and cumulative impacts.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance, asserts that TotalEnergies' response to their complaint about the Papua LNG project is insufficient. They highlight critical gaps in transparency regarding climate risk assessments, human rights impacts, and biodiversity studies. The authors argue that the project risks emitting 220 million tonnes of CO2, threatening endangered species and indigenous rights, while failing to provide clear information to local communities or adhere to the Equator Principles and IFC standards.

Reclaim Finance calls on institutional investors in Europe and North America to hold asset managers accountable for climate risks, citing examples of mandate withdrawals and the need for concrete climate selection criteria to prevent global economic losses.

The document highlights a trend in 2025 where some European and North American asset owners began withdrawing mandates from asset managers like BlackRock and State Street due to inadequate climate strategies. It criticizes large asset managers for continuing massive investments in fossil fuel developers and calls for asset owners to implement clear climate selection criteria and escalation strategies to force a transition away from fossil fuels.

The report examines the growing instability of France's 'Cat-Nat' insurance regime, where the public reinsurer (CCR) is seeing its reserves deplete while private insurers maintain record profitability. It highlights an emerging insurability crisis for local authorities, particularly in overseas territories and northern France, and argues that the financial burden of climate change is unfairly shifted toward the public sector and policyholders. Reclaim Finance calls for a revision of the financial effort sharing to ensure that major listed insurers contribute more to prevention and repair.

Between September 1 and December 18, 2025, 22,158 lobbyist entries were recorded at the European Parliament, with private interests accounting for 59% of visits. The report highlights a pervasive presence of American lobbyists (95% presence rate) and fossil fuel representatives (87.5% presence rate), who utilized direct access and professional consultancies to influence the Omnibus I law. A case study on ExxonMobil reveals the company spent between €1.3 million and €1.7 million on consultancies alone in 2025 to target climate legislation. The analysis concludes that this lobbying effort, supported by a right-wing/far-right parliamentary majority, successfully secured the removal of climate transition plans from the legislation.

Between September 1 and December 18, 2025, the European Parliament recorded 22,158 lobbyist entries, with private interests accounting for 59% of these visits. The report highlights a disproportionate presence of US-based lobbyists and fossil fuel interests, who were present 87.5% of the time during the studied period. This influence was particularly concentrated around the negotiation of the Omnibus I law, which modified the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The analysis reveals that fossil fuel lobbyists often entered the Parliament without declared appointments to engage in informal interactions. A case study of ExxonMobil demonstrates a complex lobbying chain involving direct visits, professional consultancies, and trade associations, totaling over 650 entries in four months to push for the removal of climate transition plans.

The European Central Bank (ECB) will introduce a 'climate factor' on 15 June 2026 to adjust the valuation of marketable assets issued by non-financial corporations used as collateral. The factor penalizes assets tied to high-emission activities based on sector-specific stressors, issuer-specific climate scores, and asset maturity. Reclaim Finance argues the measure is a positive step but suffers from transparency gaps and a flawed annual calculation cycle that may misrepresent risks for short-term assets. The briefing recommends making climate factors public, automating calculations, and extending the framework to credit claims and other asset classes to ensure comprehensive integration of climate risks into monetary policy.

A coalition of 133 organisations, including Reclaim Finance and WWF, argues that the European Commission's November proposal for the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is insufficient because it limits fossil fuel exclusions to only two of the three sustainable product categories. The signatories contend that allowing any ESG-labelled funds to support fossil fuel expansion would mislead investors, contradict EU climate objectives, and undermine the credibility of the SFDR framework.

The report highlights a conflict between the strategic autonomy of the European Union and the financing activities of major European banks, which continue to support US LNG export terminals. It notes that the EU imported 57% of its LNG from the US in 2025, a figure that could rise to 80% by 2030. The document identifies specific banks—including ING, Crédit Agricole, Santander, BPCE (via Natixis), and Société Générale—as key financiers of US developers like Venture Global and Freeport LNG. It warns that this dependence, compounded by a July 2025 trade agreement requiring the EU to purchase US$750 billion of US energy by 2028, exposes Europe to price volatility, geopolitical leverage by the US administration, and the risk of stranded assets.

The report claims that the EU's shift from Russian gas to US LNG has created a new strategic dependency, exacerbated by financing from major European banks like ING and Crédit Agricole. It highlights a July 2025 trade agreement requiring the EU to purchase $750 billion in US energy by 2028 as evidence of US geopolitical leverage. The author warns that this dependency leads to price volatility, risks stranded assets due to LNG overcapacity, and threatens EU climate targets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites (FRR) for its updated fossil fuel exclusion policy, asserting that it continues to support oil and gas expansion and lacks science-based criteria for selecting asset managers.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites (FRR) continues to use public money to support fossil fuel expansion despite updating its exclusion policy. The FRR's new measures only target unconventional hydrocarbons and thermal coal, leaving conventional oil and gas investments intact. The document also highlights the FRR's failure to implement science-based criteria for selecting asset managers, noting that it continues to work with firms like BlackRock despite their climate records.

Reclaim Finance's 2026 report reveals that 62% of analyzed unit-linked accounts (UC) in French life insurance are exposed to fossil fuel developers, despite growing saver demand for sustainable investments. The study highlights a systemic 'blind spot' where insurers apply climate policies to their general funds (fonds euro) but ignore them for UC. Specifically, 61% of UC are exposed to oil and gas developers, and 15% to thermal coal. The report also identifies significant greenwashing risks, noting that 47% of funds with 'sustainable' or 'ESG' labels still hold fossil fuel developers. It recommends that insurers stop referencing new fossil-exposed funds, demand robust climate strategies from asset managers, and calls for public authorities to implement an 'eco-score' for savings products.

The report challenges the narrative of fossil gas as a necessary transition fuel for grid flexibility. It distinguishes between Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT), which are agile but inefficient, and Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT), which are efficient for baseload power but suffer from premature aging, higher emissions, and reduced profitability when used for peak demand. The author highlights that CCGT viability often relies on costly government capacity mechanisms funded by consumers. Furthermore, a global shortage of gas turbines is delaying projects and increasing costs. The document advocates for replacing gas with sustainable flexibility solutions, including battery storage, pumped hydro, demand-side response, and improved interconnections, urging financial institutions to cease funding new gas power projects.

The report challenges the narrative of fossil gas as a necessary 'bridge fuel' for grid flexibility. It argues that Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs), which dominate new developments, are designed for baseload rather than peakload, and using them for flexibility reduces their lifespan and increases emissions. The document highlights that gas plant profitability is often maintained through costly consumer-funded capacity mechanisms and notes a critical global shortage of gas turbines. It concludes that sustainable alternatives—such as battery storage, pumped hydro, demand-side response, and grid enhancements—provide more efficient and cheaper flexibility, urging financial institutions to cease support for new gas projects.