Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance calls on AXA to cease providing insurance for the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal and other new fossil fuel projects. The organization argues that such infrastructure facilitates the import of shale gas, contradicts AXA's leadership in the Net Zero Insurance Alliance, and ignores calls from the French Ministry of Economy to exit non-conventional oil and gas sectors.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance and Urgewald, wrote to the CEOs of ten insurance companies (including Allianz, AXA, and Munich Re) demanding they stop insuring the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal in northern Germany. The authors argue that the project, promoted by Gasunie, will lock in greenhouse gas emissions for 30–50 years, contradicting the 1.5°C goal and risking the creation of a stranded asset. They highlight that the project costs €450 million, with up to €100 million from German taxpayers, and faces significant opposition from environmental groups and market analysts.

The statement criticizes the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (AOA) for its 'The Net in Net Zero' paper, which encourages asset owners to scale investment in offsets and negative emissions technologies. The author contends that this focus shifts attention away from the necessary deep decarbonization and the phase-down of fossil fuel production. The text highlights the failure of previous offsetting schemes, such as the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and argues that current efforts by the AOA and the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) will replicate these flaws. It concludes that asset owners should follow the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 'Net Zero by 2050' report by stopping investments in new oil and gas projects.

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, new coal infrastructure must stop immediately and most existing plants must be retired by 2030. It provides a framework for financial institutions to assess corporate coal exit plans, emphasizing that credible plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, a prohibition on selling assets to new owners, and a ban on converting plants to other fossil fuels or biomass. The briefing also highlights the necessity of funded just transition plans and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and legal challenges via investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, the global coal industry must be phased out rapidly, with 80% of the global fleet and all facilities in the OECD, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union closed by 2030. It provides financial institutions with a ten-point framework to assess corporate phase-out plans, emphasizing that plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, prohibit the sale of assets to new owners, and forbid conversion to fossil gas, biomass, or fossil-based hydrogen. The briefing also warns against using carbon capture and storage (CCS) or Science-Based Targets (SBTi) as substitutes for concrete closure plans and insists on funded just transition roadmaps and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims.

The document argues that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, all coal assets must be closed by 2030 in OECD and European countries and by 2040 globally. It outlines a comprehensive framework for financial institutions to phase out coal support, combining immediate exclusion criteria for new projects and high-exposure companies with a structured engagement process for remaining portfolio companies to ensure the actual closure, rather than the sale, of coal assets.

The report finds that most G20 and Eurosystem central banks lack credible sustainable investment policies for their non-policy portfolios, often relying on opacity or weak ESG criteria to mask continued support for fossil fuel companies. While the Banque de France is highlighted as a leader for its fossil fuel restrictions, the majority of analyzed banks either have no public SRI policy or use 'tricks' such as investing in green bonds without excluding major polluters. The document recommends that central banks adopt strict exclusion policies for coal and new fossil fuel projects to align with a 1.5°C warming trajectory.

The report analyzes the European Central Bank's (ECB) corporate asset purchases during the Covid-19 pandemic, specifically under the Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP). It finds that the ECB increased its holdings of bonds from five oil and gas majors—Shell, TotalEnergies, Repsol, Eni, and OMV—between April 2020 and September 2021. The author argues that these companies' investment plans are incompatible with 1.5C or 2C warming limits, as they continue to expand fossil fuel production and invest in liquified natural gas (LNG) and unconventional sources. The report criticizes the ECB's July 2021 climate roadmap for being 'dangerously imprecise' and for delaying the implementation of climate criteria for asset purchases until 2023. It concludes that the ECB must immediately exclude fossil fuel developers from its corporate purchases and collateral framework to avoid supporting 'stranded' assets and systemic climate risk.

Reclaim Finance claims that TotalEnergies is using 'climate-KPI linked' debt to fund a strategy that remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, arguing that these sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) lack the ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C trajectory.

The document critiques TotalEnergies' plan to issue Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs), asserting that the company's climate targets and overall corporate strategy are misaligned with the Paris Agreement. It highlights flaws in the company's KPIs, specifically regarding scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and points to a projected 50% growth in hydrocarbon production by 2030 as evidence of a strategy at odds with climate science. The briefing concludes that these bonds serve as a marketing tool to secure funding for oil and gas expansion rather than a genuine mechanism for energy transition.

Reclaim Finance critiques a proposed initiative by the Asian Development Bank and Prudential to accelerate the closure of coal plants in Asia. The organization warns that the scheme could provide a financial lifeline to polluting plants, allow major fossil fuel funders like Citi, HSBC, and BlackRock to greenwash their reputations, and fail to ensure that resale profits are used for the energy transition rather than further fossil fuel investment.

Reclaim Finance argues that the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios are unrealistic and risky because they rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments. The document warns that these scenarios, which are used by European and British regulators, could lead financial institutions to fund stranded assets and non-sustainable biomass, ultimately pushing global warming beyond 1.5°C. It calls for the NGFS to align with IEA recommendations by requiring an immediate stop to new coal, oil, and gas projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the NGFS's June 2021 climate scenarios for failing to provide realistic 1.5°C pathways. The organization argues that the scenarios rely too heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fail to mandate an end to fossil fuel investments, which could lead to stranded assets and global warming overshoot. Reclaim Finance recommends that the NGFS align its forecasts with an immediate end to new fossil fuel projects and adopt a precautionary approach to biomass and carbon dioxide removal.

Reclaim Finance argues that Eurizon's March 2021 coal exclusion policy is insufficient due to vague definitions of 'clear direct involvement' in thermal coal and a lack of transparency regarding its implementation. The policy notably fails to address coal expansion plans and excludes index funds, 'LTE' funds, and certain mandates from its scope.

The statement highlights the continued support of the coal industry by Japanese financial giants Mizuho, SMBC, MUFG, and Tokio Marine, noting billions of dollars in financing and insurance provided to coal developers and projects globally despite climate commitments.

The document argues that while the European Central Bank's (ECB) revised monetary strategy acknowledges climate threats, its concrete actions and implementation timeline are insufficient. Reclaim Finance, Greenpeace, 350.org, and Koala Kollektiv recommend that the ECB immediately stop supporting companies incompatible with EU greenhouse gas reduction goals, specifically by excluding fossil fuel project developers from asset purchases and the collateral framework, and accelerate its implementation schedule to address climate risks.

Allianz Global Investors (Allianz GI) introduced its first coal exclusion policy in July 2021, excluding companies that derive over 30% of revenues from thermal coal or produce over 30% of electricity from coal. Reclaim Finance argues this policy is outdated, mirroring a 2015 standard rather than the more stringent current Allianz Group policy. The analysis highlights that Allianz GI remains invested in 96 coal companies, including 43 coal developers, and lacks commitments to end support for coal expansion or set a full exit date for the coal sector. The document calls for the adoption of absolute exclusion thresholds and alignment with the Allianz Group's goal to exit coal by 2040.

The document highlights the financial backing of Pemex by global banks and investors following a pipeline leak and fire in the Gulf of Mexico. It criticizes Pemex's plans to expand production by 2050 and calls for the financial sector to end support for oil and gas expansion, particularly high-risk offshore drilling, ahead of COP 26.

The report argues that the NGFS's second set of 1.5°C scenarios are not aligned with the Paris Agreement and are unsustainable due to an over-reliance on fossil fuels, biomass, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It finds that these scenarios fail to account for the need to end fossil fuel expansion and rely on unproven technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to justify slower phase-outs of oil, gas, and coal.

The report examines how the EU sustainable taxonomy, originally designed to be science-based, has been influenced by industry lobbying to potentially include fossil gas and nuclear energy. It argues that gas is not a sustainable transition fuel due to methane leaks and carbon lock-in, and that nuclear energy fails the 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) principle due to waste and safety risks. The document details the scale of lobbying efforts, identifying hundreds of meetings between EU officials and industry representatives, and criticizes the EU Commission for deferring decisions on these technologies to future legislation and relying on flawed technical reports.