Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance has issued a series of formal questions to Société Générale regarding the bank's alignment with a 1.5°C warming trajectory. The document argues that Société Générale continues to provide significant financial services to major oil and gas developers, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, TotalEnergies, and BP, and fails to effectively exclude non-conventional hydrocarbons and coal-producing parent companies from its portfolios.

The testimony asserts that CCUS is not a viable climate solution, citing its failure to meet capture targets, high costs compared to renewables, and the risk of increasing lifecycle emissions. It highlights that most captured carbon is used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which produces more CO2 than it captures. The author warns of significant safety risks from CO2 pipelines and the environmental dangers of offshore storage in the Gulf of Mexico, where legacy oil and gas wells increase the likelihood of leaks and ocean acidification.

Reclaim Finance condemns TotalEnergies' decision to reject a shareholder resolution requesting Paris-aligned climate targets, arguing that the company's existing climate plan is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and that its justifications for the rejection are fallacious.

Reclaim Finance criticizes RWE for maintaining a coal phase-out target of 2038, which it claims is eight years behind scientific recommendations. The organization highlights RWE's role as one of Europe's largest CO2 emitters, its reliance on fossil gas as a bridge fuel, and its efforts to obtain €2.6 billion in compensation from the German government. It specifically calls on major shareholders, including Crédit Agricole/Amundi, Société Générale, and BNP Paribas, to use the upcoming AGM to sanction the company's lack of a coherent transition strategy.

Reclaim Finance critiques Mark Carney's claims that financing for carbon-intensive industries is necessary and consistent with a 1.5°C transition. The organization argues that GFANZ acts as a 'greenwashing operation' due to its lack of enforcement and transparency, and asserts that new fossil fuel infrastructure is neither a viable solution to the energy crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine nor compatible with IEA pathways. It calls for a managed decline of fossil fuel production and the adoption of strict enforcement mechanisms for financial institutions committing to net zero.

Reclaim Finance criticizes AXA and AXA IM for maintaining financial support for new fossil fuel projects despite their public commitment to a 1.5°C trajectory. The statement highlights that AXA continues to provide insurance for new oil and gas projects and that AXA IM has historically voted in favor of insufficient climate plans from oil majors like TotalEnergies, Shell, and BP.

The letter asserts that GFANZ is acting as a "smokescreen" for the financial sector's lack of progress on decarbonization. It highlights a gap between GFANZ's goal of halving emissions by 2030 and the reality that many members continue to fund new coal, oil, and gas projects. The authors demand that GFANZ implement interim milestones, absolute emission targets, mandatory Scope 3 targets for fossil fuel companies, and a ban on using offsets to meet 2030 targets.

The statement criticizes the World Bank and IFC for supporting an unsustainable gas-based energy model in Bangladesh and calls for an immediate shift toward renewable energy to avoid stranded assets and align with the Paris Agreement.

The document criticizes the World Bank and IFC for fostering Pakistan's dependence on expensive fossil gas and imported LNG, urging a shift toward indigenous renewable energy sources and transparent consultation with civil society.

The document highlights a contradiction between Indonesia's commitment to the Global Methane Pledge and the World Bank's Country Partnership Framework (CPF) 2021-24, which supports the acceleration of natural gas and biogas deployment. It warns that gas infrastructure projects, including power stations and LNG terminals, will increase greenhouse gas emissions. The author urges the redirection of finance away from fossil gas and unproven technologies like CCUS toward renewable energy, grid modernisation, and a just transition from coal.

PGE is identified as the most coal-intensive utility in Europe, with 15 GW of capacity and 71% of its revenue derived from coal. The company plans to exit coal by 2049 and is currently expanding the Turów coal mine and developing new gas power plants. The document highlights a contradiction in BlackRock's investment in PGE given BlackRock's 1.5°C alignment pledges.

The document rebuts the Fédération bancaire française's (FBF) assertions that French banks are prioritizing the climate transition. It argues that despite Net-Zero commitments, French banks provided over $350 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2021 and continue to fund companies expanding fossil fuel production, contrary to IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C pathway.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors, arguing that the Board has breached its legal duties under the UK Companies Act by failing to properly prepare the company for the net zero transition. ClientEarth asserts that Shell's current climate strategy is insufficient, noting that its net zero target is not reflected in budgets and that its 'Energy Transition Strategy' focuses on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions reductions. The litigation seeks to compel the Board to align Shell's strategy with the Paris Agreement to protect the company's long-term commercial viability.

Natural Justice critiques the South African Oceans Economy Master Plan to 2035, stating it lacks concrete analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation and contradicts global scientific consensus by proposing offshore oil and gas exploration. The commentary highlights a 'troubling absence' of biodiversity considerations and fails to address the needs of small-scale and subsistence fishers. It further argues that the plan's job creation claims lack factual support and that the public participation process was flawed, excluding many marginalized coastal communities.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) condemns the 2022/23 South African budget for prioritizing 'fiscal consolidation' and debt reduction over poverty alleviation and public service investment. The IEJ argues that the government is ignoring a revenue windfall of R181 billion to implement austerity measures that result in real spending cuts for healthcare and education, while maintaining an inadequate Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. The document criticizes the reduction in corporate income tax and the reliance on public-private partnerships (PPPs) for industrial policy, suggesting instead that progressive taxes on wealth and luxury goods should fund a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG).

Good Governance Africa argues that South Africa's budget speech ignores critical fiscal threats, including ballooning debt, a shrinking tax base, and extreme unemployment. The author criticizes the lack of a clear plan for private sector job creation and the insufficient attention given to climate change and the energy transition, specifically regarding the retirement of coal plants and the development of renewables.

Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's growth in passive management, specifically through the takeover of Lyxor, has increased the volume of assets not covered by coal policies. The organization contends that Amundi's reliance on ESG filters is insufficient, as approximately 60% of its passively managed assets remain exempt from coal-related restrictions. Furthermore, Reclaim Finance claims Amundi supports companies like Glencore that pursue coal expansion and maintains an unconventional oil and gas policy that allows investments in companies responsible for 75% of global production expansion plans.

Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's strategy of increasing passive management, specifically through the acquisition of Lyxor, creates a loophole where billions of euros in assets remain uncovered by coal exclusion policies. The document further contends that Amundi's engagement with companies like Glencore and its policies on unconventional fossil fuels effectively support continued fossil fuel expansion rather than a genuine 1.5°C-aligned transition.

The document is an open letter from a coalition of civil society organisations to the European Commission criticizing the revision process of the "nanomaterial" definition. The authors argue that the 2021 online consultation was rushed and lacked clarity, potentially leading to a definition that excludes substances covered by the 2011 recommendation. They highlight risks such as the under-registration of nanomaterials in REACH and the presence of unauthorised nanomaterials in consumer products. The signatories demand that the Commission justify modifications with real-world examples, conduct transparent public Q&A sessions, and align the definition with the latest scientific evidence, citing EFSA guidance on particle size thresholds.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Bank of England's (BoE) strategy to decarbonize its corporate sector purchases scheme (CBPS) is insufficient. While the BoE has implemented a Paris-aligned phase-out of coal, the organization claims the framework contains loopholes for oil and gas developers, relies on a slow 'escalation ladder' for divestment, and excludes scope 3 emissions from its targets and scorecard. The document also references quantitative research suggesting the BoE's 'market neutrality' approach may prevent a substantive reduction in the portfolio's carbon intensity.