Search Climate Insights Directory

The report highlights a global divergence in coal energy: while most of the world is decommissioning coal plants due to financial pressures and climate goals, China significantly increased its capacity in 2020. In 2020, China's new coal capacity of 38.4 GW nearly offset the total global decommissioning of 37.8 GW. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian and South Asian nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines have moved to cancel or review plans for 62 GW of coal capacity. The US saw record decommissioning under Donald Trump, and the EU continues to phase out coal. However, the report warns that current trajectories, especially in China, make the IPCC's 1.5°C warming limit unattainable without massive cancellations of planned projects.

The report finds that the EU is planning a 35% increase in gas import capacity through pipelines and LNG terminals, costing an estimated €87 billion. This expansion is argued to be unnecessary for security of supply and contradictory to the EU's climate goals, creating a significant risk of stranded assets and emissions lock-in. While public financing from the EIB and EU grants has historically catalyzed these projects, the report notes a shift toward phasing out such support, though private finance and initiatives like the Three Seas Initiative continue to pose risks of further fossil gas entrenchment.

The briefing argues that the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) has failed to trigger a meaningful global coal exit due to significant loopholes in its declaration and a lack of monitoring. It highlights that many financial institution members continue to invest in coal, and co-chairs Canada and the UK are not leading by example, with Canada developing new coal mines. The document calls for a reform of the PPCA to align with climate science, requiring an immediate stop to new coal projects and a full sector exit by 2030 in OECD/European countries and 2040 globally.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis, arguing instead that the bank is the largest European financier of the industry and the 4th largest globally. The organization contends that the bank's sectoral policies are ineffective against oil and gas majors and that its use of the PACTA methodology should not delay immediate action to halt sector expansion.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis or supported companies in transition. The organization highlights that BNP Paribas was the largest European and fourth largest global financier of fossil fuels in 2020, with $41 billion in funding, and argues that the bank's sector policies fail to restrict funding to oil and gas majors despite their lack of alignment with the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that the 60 largest global banks provided $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2020. Despite a 9% drop in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financing levels remained higher than in 2016. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the world's worst fossil fuel banker, with $317 billion provided over the five-year period. The analysis highlights a significant gap between banks' 'net zero by 2050' pledges and their continued funding of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in sectors like LNG, offshore oil and gas, and coal. The report also details the human rights and environmental impacts of specific projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and the Line 3 pipeline, and argues that current bank policies are insufficient to align with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.

Reclaim Finance assesses the March 2021 coal exclusion policy of UBS Asset Management, finding it insufficient due to the omission of the coal power sector and the exclusion of passively managed assets. The analysis highlights that UBS AM continues to support coal developers and companies below a 30% revenue threshold, such as Glencore and Adani, and lacks a defined global coal phase-out strategy aligned with IPCC-based deadlines.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Albioma's plan to convert the Bois-Rouge and Le Gol power plants on Réunion Island to 100% biomass. The organization argues that the project would increase greenhouse gas emissions, rely on unsustainable imports of wood pellets from the US or Southern Africa, and undermine the 2030 energy autonomy goal for French overseas territories. It calls on French financial institutions, including Crédit Agricole, BNP Paribas, and Société Générale, to push Albioma toward a genuine coal exit and the adoption of sustainable renewable energy instead of 'false solutions' like industrial biomass.

Reclaim Finance asserts that BlackRock's goal to align its portfolio with a net zero economy is contradicted by its $75 billion in holdings in 30 major tar sands production companies and $3.7 billion in key pipeline companies. The organization highlights that tar sands emissions are 3.2 to 4.5 times higher than conventional North American oil and calls for BlackRock to stop investing in companies deriving more than 5% of revenue or reserves from tar sands, and to exit those expanding the sector.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

In 2018, Kenya received KES 243.3 billion (USD 2.4 billion) in climate finance, which is approximately half of the annual funding required to meet its NDC targets. The report highlights a significant imbalance in fund allocation, with 79.8% of finance directed toward mitigation—primarily large-scale renewable energy—while adaptation received only 11.7%. Public finance accounted for 59.4% of the total, and private finance 40.7%. Major investment gaps exist in the water, forestry, and transport sectors. The document recommends scaling up adaptation finance, implementing private sector incentives for non-energy sectors, and operationalizing 'Segment 8' in the Integrated Financial Management and Information System (IFMIS) to improve climate expenditure tracking.

The report finds that private equity energy funds have consistently underperformed broader private equity benchmarks, with many losing money. This is attributed to high bankruptcy rates among debt-laden private equity-backed oil and gas companies, a collapse in buyer demand for fossil fuel assets, and a global transition toward renewable energy. The document highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated these trends, leading to a 'structural shift' where fossil fuel demand is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels.

The report finds a nascent process of alignment in Colombia, where progress in green bond issuance and renewable energy auctions is offset by significant continued investment in fossil fuels and high deforestation rates. While the government has established frameworks like the Climate Change Law (2018) and a Carbon Tax, public spending remains heavily skewed toward the energy and mining sectors. Private financial flows are largely inconsistent with climate goals, with carbon-related assets dominating the listed equity market and insurance portfolios. The authors recommend a just transition that redirects fossil fuel subsidies toward renewables and enhances the use of green taxonomies to improve transparency.

EV financing in India is currently hindered by asset and business model risks, leading to higher interest rates and larger down payments compared to internal combustion engine vehicles. The document estimates that India's EV transition will require 19.7 trillion Indian rupees (US$266 billion) in cumulative capital investment over the next decade, with a potential financing market size of 3.7 trillion rupees (US$50 billion) by 2030. To address these barriers, the author suggests a toolkit including priority sector lending, interest rate subventions, product guarantees, risk-sharing mechanisms, and the development of a secondary market.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) outlines an analysis of urban climate adaptation finance, focusing on the challenges of tracking financial flows and the objective of identifying gaps to mobilize resilience solutions in global urban areas by 2030.

The report analyzes China's green finance landscape, noting that while significant progress was made during the 13th Five-Year Plan through top-down policy and the growth of green loans and bonds, current funding levels are insufficient. It estimates that annual investment must increase fourfold to approximately $1.4 trillion to meet 2015 climate goals. The analysis highlights a heavy reliance on public sector funding, with 51% of green finance coming from public sources, and identifies barriers for private sector participation, including high search costs and a lack of incentive structures. The report also examines the potential for 'greening' the Belt and Road Initiative, where half of energy-related investments currently go to fossil fuels, and suggests leveraging fintech and innovative risk-sharing mechanisms to expand the climate finance scale.

The report finds that urban adaptation finance is significantly underfunded, representing only 3-5% of total global adaptation flows, with an estimated annual investment of up to USD 3.7 billion against a projected need of USD 11-20 billion for urban infrastructure protection. Analysis of the Global Landscape of Climate Finance, World Bank PPI, and CDP Cities data reveals a heavy concentration of funding in the water and wastewater sectors and a geographic bias toward East Asia and the Pacific, particularly China. Key barriers to scaling finance include limited DFI mandates for sub-national investment, poor municipal creditworthiness, and a lack of standardized outcome metrics for private investors. The report recommends developing practitioner case study databases, improving urban boundary tracking, and expanding DFI mandates to work directly with cities.

China has made significant progress in establishing a green financial system, with green credit and bonds becoming the largest in the world. However, the system remains heavily dominated by public actors, with public sources accounting for 51% of total green finance. To meet its 2015 environmental standards and climate targets, China requires an estimated USD 1.4 trillion in annual investment over the next decade, meaning current finance levels must scale up by at least four times. Key barriers to private capital include a lack of transparency in project pipelines, high search costs for impact investors, and a preference for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in formal financing channels. The report highlights opportunities in green fintech, such as Ant Forest, and matchmaking platforms like those in Huzhou. It also examines China's outbound finance, noting that half of energy-related investments in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries went to fossil fuels, and suggests implementing mandatory exclusion lists and green standards to decarbonize these flows.

The report analyzes the intersection of private equity ownership in the US healthcare sector and the False Claims Act (FCA). It argues that the private equity 'playbook'—prioritizing high returns over short horizons—often leads to fraudulent activities such as billing for medically unnecessary services or using unqualified staff. While private equity firms were historically shielded from FCA settlements, the report highlights a shift in the US Department of Justice's approach, particularly regarding the misuse of CARES Act funds. It provides data on at least 25 companies that paid over $570 million in settlements since 2013 and details case studies involving firms like Riordan, Lewis & Haden and H.I.G. Capital.