Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing by Reclaim Finance details how the fossil gas and nuclear lobbies have exerted significant pressure on the European Commission to include their activities in the EU sustainable taxonomy. Despite the Technical Expert Group's initial recommendation to exclude them based on environmental harm and carbon thresholds, the document highlights a high volume of meetings between EU officials and lobbyists, as well as substantial financial spending by these sectors to reshape the regulation.

Reclaim Finance reports that the Paris financial centre has failed to meet its mid-2020 deadline for coal exit strategies, with only about ten French financial actors adopting sufficiently robust policies. The analysis specifically criticizes Société Générale for policies that exempt companies with coal exposure under 25%, arguing that such gaps prevent a genuine transition to zero coal.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Paris financial center has failed its commitment to implement effective coal exit strategies by mid-2020. While some institutions like AXA and Crédit Agricole/Amundi have adopted strong policies, many others, notably Société Générale, are criticized for insufficient policies that do not require companies to establish closure plans for coal infrastructure. The author warns against 'greenwashing' and the substitution of 'exit' policies with weaker 'exclusion' policies.

The document criticizes the European Commission for considering the inclusion of nuclear energy and natural gas in the EU green taxonomy despite technical recommendations to the contrary. It highlights that while the Technical Expert Group (TEG) set a CO2 emission threshold of 100g CO2/Kwh and excluded nuclear power, the Commission may use a separate technical review for nuclear and raise emission thresholds for gas. The author calls for the creation of a 'brown' taxonomy to identify activities incompatible with climate goals.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale's updated coal policy is insufficient because it allows continued support for companies developing new coal projects and relies on a vague 25% revenue threshold for restricting services.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale's coal exit strategy is inadequate because it allows continued support for companies planning new coal projects and uses a revenue-based threshold for restricting services that lacks a precise definition of a 'credible exit strategy'.

Reclaim Finance responds to the ACPR's consultation on climate stress tests in France, warning that the current framework may underestimate risks. The organization advocates for a precautionary approach regarding fossil fuel exposure, more precise international risk accounting, and a critical review of the 'dynamic balance sheet' assumption. It also suggests that the 'orderly transition' reference scenario is unlikely and that the exercise fails to account for systemic shocks like the coronavirus pandemic.

The statement argues that AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole are acting hypocritically by maintaining public commitments to the Paris Agreement and the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance while voting against a climate resolution for Total. It highlights that Total's current plans include increasing hydrocarbon production by 12% between 2018 and 2030 and allocating 80% of its capex to fossil fuels by 2030, which contradicts the 1.5°C warming limit.

Reclaim Finance highlights a contradiction between the public climate pledges of AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole and their decision to vote against a shareholder resolution calling for Total to improve its climate actions. The document argues that Total's current strategy—which includes increasing hydrocarbon production and maintaining high fossil fuel capex—is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory, making the investors' opposition to the resolution hypocritical given their stated goals of carbon neutrality and Paris Agreement alignment.

The document criticizes the May 30, 2020, opening of the Datteln 4 coal power plant in Germany, alleging that Uniper and its parent company Fortum received significant financial support from BNP Paribas and the European Central Bank (ECB). It claims BNP Paribas provided USD 215 million to Uniper and USD 2.9 billion to Fortum between 2017 and 2019, and that the ECB continues to support Fortum through quantitative easing without considering climate impact.

The guide asserts that the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks contribute to a high-carbon economy by providing cash to financial actors and purchasing bonds without considering climate impacts.

The Unfriend Coal/Insure Our Future campaign calls on the insurance industry to leverage the economic disruptions of COVID-19 to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. The authors argue that while progress has been made in restricting coal insurance, insurers must now expand these restrictions to oil and gas to meet Paris Agreement targets. The letter outlines five specific demands, including an immediate end to insuring new coal, oil, and gas projects and the divestment of assets from companies not aligned with a 1.5ºC pathway.

Reclaim Finance calls on Total shareholders to support a climate resolution, arguing that the company's recent climate ambitions are insufficient and serve as a 'smoke screen' to maintain fossil fuel expansion.

The report by Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France analyzes the climate pledges of several French financial institutions. While some banks like Natixis and SCOR have introduced coal exit timelines and exclusions, the authors argue that many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of major oil and gas companies, and a lack of alignment across all business lines, particularly in the case of Société Générale and SCOR's reinsurance activities.

The report analyzes the coal and shale oil and gas policies announced in May 2020 by BNP Paribas, Natixis, Rothschild & Co, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole. It concludes that while some institutions like Natixis have made progress toward coal phase-out, many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of oil and gas majors, or a lack of firm disinvestment strategies. Notably, Société Générale is criticized for postponing action and continuing to support shale gas development.

The document examines the climate impact of the European Central Bank's (ECB) asset purchase programs, specifically the Corporate Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). It highlights a significant lack of transparency regarding the value of held assets and argues that the ECB's 'market neutrality' principle results in a portfolio heavily weighted toward carbon-intensive sectors. The report identifies 38 fossil fuel companies in the ECB's portfolio, including 10 linked to coal and several majors like Shell, Total, and Eni. It concludes with recommendations for the ECB to exclude companies without 1.5°C-aligned exit plans and to adopt a 'brown taxonomy' to better target asset purchases.

The report analyzes the ECB's corporate asset purchase programs (CSPP and PEPP), finding that they provide significant financial support to companies active in coal, oil, and gas. It criticizes the ECB's lack of transparency regarding asset values and argues that the principle of 'market neutrality' creates an anti-climate bias by favoring carbon-intensive sectors. The author recommends that the ECB exclude fossil fuel companies without phase-out plans and align its monetary policy with the 1.5°C trajectory of the Paris Agreement.

The statement critiques a survey by the Basel Committee's High-level Task Force on Climate-related Financial Risks (TFCR), noting that while 23 financial jurisdictions recognize climate change as a financial risk, most are only in the 'building knowledge' phase. It calls for the immediate exclusion of fossil fuel assets from refinancing operations and quantitative easing to mitigate systemic risks and stranded assets.

A coalition of 92 organisations argues that BlackRock's role in developing ESG criteria for EU banking rules is compromised by its massive investments in fossil fuels and its history of lobbying against such regulations.

The document argues that BlackRock Investment Management (UK) is unfit to advise the European Commission on environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in banking because of its financial stakes in fossil fuels and its history of lobbying against the EU taxonomy. The signatories claim that BlackRock's role as a major shareholder in European and global banks, as well as its holdings in coal, oil, and gas, create a conflict of interest that undermines the European Green Deal. The letter requests the cancellation of the contract, public disclosure of future reports, and a revision of the Commission's consultation procedures to reduce the influence of the fossil fuel industry.