Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance argues that Engie's coal exit plan is insufficient because it allows for the conversion of plants to gas or biomass and the sale of assets to other companies, which does not guarantee actual emission reductions or protect workers.

A coalition of climate and accountability organisations argues that Shell's 2021 strategy update is insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C. They claim the company relies on intensity-based targets rather than absolute reductions, continues heavy investment in upstream oil and gas, and depends on unrealistic carbon capture and offset projections. The authors call on investors to support a resolution requiring Shell to set quantitative, Paris-aligned targets for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

Reclaim Finance critiques Santander's new environmental policy, noting that while the bank aims for zero exposure to thermal coal mining by 2030 and restricts non-conventional oil and gas financing, it fails to implement immediate exclusion criteria for high-exposure clients or a comprehensive exit plan for conventional fossil fuels.

Reclaim Finance evaluates Santander's February 2021 policy updates, noting a commitment to 0% thermal coal mining exposure by 2030 and new exclusions for unconventional oil and gas. However, the organization argues these measures are 'too little too late,' citing a high 10% revenue threshold for coal power exclusions and a lack of immediate exclusion criteria for existing coal developers, which allowed the bank to channel $5.7bn to 25 coal companies between 2018 and 2020.

The text compares 'Say on Climate' initiatives—where companies submit their own strategies for shareholder votes—with shareholder-led climate resolutions. It argues that for companies like Total SE, 'Say on Climate' can act as a 'distraction' or 'diversion' that allows management to legitimize 'watered down' or 'incrementalist' strategies. The author contends that only shareholder-led resolutions allow investors to 'define the terms of debate' and push for strategies compatible with viable climate trajectories, citing the 2020 resolution at Total SE as a positive example.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a proposed French decree on ESG reporting for financial investors, arguing it fails to align with the Paris Agreement, ignores fossil fuel financing, and lacks sanctions for non-compliance. The organization calls for mandatory transparency and penalties to force financial actors to abandon fossil fuel investments.

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published climate scenarios in June 2020 to help manage financial climate risks. However, analysis by Oil Change International and Reclaim Finance suggests these scenarios have dangerous shortcomings, specifically by prioritizing 2°C targets over 1.5°C and relying on unrealistic levels of carbon capture. These assumptions create a bias in favor of continued fossil fuel production and investment, potentially slowing the global fight against climate change.

Reclaim Finance and Oil Change International critique the NGFS's initial climate scenarios for focusing on 2°C targets rather than 1.5°C and for relying on unrealistic levels of carbon capture. The authors contend that these choices create a bias in favor of fossil fuels, with some scenarios allowing coal use beyond 2050 and only modest reductions in fossil fuel investments. They call for a revised framework that centers a 1.5°C scenario and encourages financial regulators to end support for the fossil fuel sector.

The statement contends that nuclear energy fails the sustainability criteria of the European taxonomy due to unresolved waste management, pollution from uranium extraction, and high water usage. It further claims that heavy reliance on nuclear power can hinder the deployment of renewable energy and does not significantly lower carbon emissions compared to renewable-based systems.

Reclaim Finance argues that nuclear energy should be excluded from the European taxonomy because it fails to meet sustainability goals regarding waste management, pollution, and biodiversity. The document claims that nuclear power can hinder the deployment of renewable energy and that the taxonomy is a transparency tool rather than a mechanism that prevents state-funded nuclear investment.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing oil, gas, and mining companies up to three years to develop 'net zero' plans, arguing this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights a contradiction where Aviva maintains investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore despite a 2030 coal exit pledge. Specifically, it points to Aviva's management of a Polish pension fund with over 250 million euros in coal sector investments, including increased holdings in Enea, PGE, and CEZ in 2020, as well as investments in PGNiG.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing fossil fuel companies up to three years to develop net zero plans, arguing that this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights contradictions in Aviva's policy, specifically noting continued investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore, and significant holdings in Polish coal and gas companies such as PGE and PGNiG through third-party managed assets.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The document analyzes the gap between Total SE's public climate ambitions and its actual business strategy, which continues to prioritize fossil fuel expansion. It highlights the role of French banks and investors in supporting this model and calls for a shift toward absolute emission reductions and the cessation of new fossil fuel projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the European Central Bank (ECB) and Banque de France for a 'wait-and-see attitude' toward the climate crisis. The statement contends that the ECB's creation of a 'climate center' and its investment in green bonds are insufficient 'publicity stunts' that do not address the bank's continued financial support for polluting companies and fossil fuel projects through its multi-trillion euro monetary policy.

The document critiques the EU Commission's decision to seek advice on increasing the flexibility of the EU taxonomy, arguing that such moves are concessions to polluting industries. It asserts that the taxonomy's purpose is to identify activities contributing to the ecological transition and improve disclosure, rather than to protect 'hard to abate' sectors. The author suggests that instead of weakening the framework, the Commission should develop a complementary "significantly harmful" taxonomy to help financial supervisors scale down support for climate-destructive activities.

The author criticizes the European Commission for seeking advice on making the EU taxonomy more inclusive of 'non-green' sectors, arguing that this is a concession to polluter lobbyists. The text asserts that the taxonomy's purpose is to identify activities contributing to the ecological transition and improve transparency, rather than simply rewarding marginal carbon improvements. It concludes that instead of weakening the current framework, the EU should develop a 'significantly harmful' taxonomy to actively divert funds away from environmentally damaging activities.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero deforestation,' arguing that it erroneously equates the protection of indigenous forests with the planting of new forests, which cannot replace the 'unrecoverable carbon' and ecosystem services of natural forests. It further asserts that agricultural certifications for soy, such as RTRS and Proterra, are insufficient because they represent only 1.5% to 3% of global production and often allow large-scale monocultures and pesticides. The author calls on banks, insurers, and investors to pressure soy traders like Cargill to stop purchasing soy from land converted after January 1, 2020.

The document highlights the role of the soya industry in driving deforestation in Brazil's Amazon and Cerrado regions, noting that tropical deforestation accounts for approximately 8% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. It identifies the 'ABCD group' (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus) as key traders failing to prevent deforestation due to a lack of cut-off dates, standardized clauses, and traceability. The author urges financial institutions to require traders to implement a cut-off date no later than January 1, 2020, establish full traceability and independent monitoring, and respect indigenous human rights, threatening the suspension of financial services for non-compliance by January 1, 2022.

The report finds that BlackRock continues to invest heavily in coal and other fossil fuels despite public pledges to invest sustainably. It highlights significant loopholes in BlackRock's coal policy and a systemic issue where passively managed assets—comprising the majority of its portfolio—are exempt from exclusion criteria.