Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how Shell and TotalEnergies integrate themselves across the VCM value chain—from project development and trading to influencing governance—to maintain fossil fuel production while claiming progress toward net-zero. It highlights systemic issues with the integrity of the credits they use, specifically in forestry and cookstove projects, and notes that neither company has a decarbonisation plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

The document argues that TotalEnergies SE has misled investors by claiming alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to increase fossil fuel production. It highlights the systemic financial risk climate change poses to global portfolios and asserts that TotalEnergies' disclosures—including claims about the role of natural gas as a transition fuel and the 'substitution' argument for continued extraction—are inaccurate. The authors call for an AMF investigation into potential breaches of the AMF General Regulations, the European Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and the French Monetary and Financial Code.

The document details a Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) pipeline leak on August 23, 2025, in Desa Lioka, which contaminated 82 hectares of land and 10 km of the Koromusilu River. It highlights a pattern of five oil spills in Luwu Timur since 2009 and links the infrastructure failure to the region's high seismic activity, noting 404 earthquakes along the pipeline route between 2015 and 2025. The report criticizes PT Vale's sustainability commitments as vague regarding MFO reduction and references the company's global history of dam disasters in Brazil.

Ember's analysis indicates that Whitehaven Coal Limited could release over 1.2 million tonnes of methane by 2050, with emissions potentially doubling by 2030 due to planned expansions. The report highlights severe discrepancies in reporting, noting that the Narrabri mine's actual emissions have been nearly five times higher than final EIS estimates. Ember argues that Whitehaven's use of internal emission factors for open-cut mines—which are often significantly lower than Australian averages—leads to underreporting. The report recommends third-party verification, improved transparency, and a 75% reduction in portfolio-wide methane emissions by 2030 to align with 1.5 degree pathways.

Reclaim Finance analyzes the Ceres document "Key Elements for a Net Zero Transition at Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Companies," concluding that it favors "business as usual" for the fossil fuel industry. The analysis identifies seven key weaknesses, including the failure to require Scope 3 targets, the reliance on intensity-based rather than absolute emission targets, and a lack of restrictions on carbon offsets. Reclaim Finance asserts that the Ceres framework is influenced by industry players like ConocoPhillips and fails to meet the standards set by GFANZ, the IPCC, and the IEA, which necessitate absolute production cuts to maintain a 1.5°C pathway.

The report exposes how major fashion brands continue to indirectly fund the Russian economy through their reliance on polyester produced by Reliance Industries and Hengli Group, both of which import Russian oil. It further highlights the industry's lack of transparency regarding synthetic supply chains and the risk of brands sourcing polyester made from coal or fracked gas.

The report reveals that 39 out of 50 studied fashion brands are linked to Reliance Industries (India) and Hengli Group (China), both of which import Russian oil to produce polyester. Despite many brands suspending operations in Russia, their reliance on synthetic fibers continues to support the Russian economy. The investigation also highlights the use of other controversial fossil fuels, including coal-to-polyester projects and oil from Saudi Aramco, while noting a severe lack of transparency in synthetic supply chains, with 84% of responding brands providing limited information.

The 2022 Theme 2 Assessment of the Forest Declaration finds that the world is not on track to meet 2030 forest goals or 2025 zero-deforestation targets for agricultural supply chains. While commodity-driven tree cover loss declined by 6% in 2021 compared to 2018-20, rates remain higher than in any year before 2016. The report highlights a significant gap between government 'green growth' agendas and actual investment, noting that trillions of dollars are mobilized for infrastructure like the Belt and Road Initiative while global public investments in forest goals are only USD 2.3 billion per year. In the private sector, only a quarter of major agricultural companies have ambitious policies to eliminate deforestation, and less than 20% of companies disclosing to CDP report near full compliance. The extractives sector shows even lower transparency and a lack of explicit forest-focused policies. Grassroots resistance, led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, has achieved some successes, such as a temporary moratorium on new concessions in Ecuador, but defenders face high rates of violence, with over 200 killed in 2021.

The Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) concluded a seven-year inquiry finding that 47 'Carbon Majors' companies contributed significantly to global emissions and engaged in 'willful obfuscation' of climate science despite knowing the risks since at least 1965. The report details severe human rights impacts in the Philippines, including threats to the rights to life, health, food security, and water, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and Indigenous Peoples. The CHR asserts that these companies, and the financial institutions that fund them, have a responsibility to respect human rights and provide remediation for climate-driven harms. It recommends that states implement punitive laws for environmental harm, put a price on pollution, and transition to renewable energy by 2030 to meet the 1.5°C limit.

The report argues that 'net zero' initiatives are being manipulated by 'Big Polluters' to create an illusion of climate action while continuing to expand fossil fuel portfolios. It specifically analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the UN's High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero campaign. The analysis highlights how leadership roles in these bodies are held by individuals and organizations with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, such as executives from banks that provide billions in fossil fuel financing and lawyers representing oil majors. For instance, the report notes that member banks of the Race to Zero, Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and GFANZ invested over US$500 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, with 25% directed toward new expansion. The document concludes that these initiatives allow polluters to greenwash their business plans and avoid meaningful regulation.

The report argues that methane emissions from livestock are a critical 'blind spot' in climate policies. It finds that neither the 18 largest producing countries nor the 20 largest industry companies have set sufficient targets to reduce methane, often ignoring the necessity of reducing livestock numbers and meat consumption to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The fact sheet identifies six corporate entities—BP, Microsoft, IETA, BlackRock, Shell, and Drax—that the author claims are using "net zero" agendas to mask continued fossil fuel investment, rely on unproven technology, and influence policymakers through extensive lobbying and partnerships surrounding COP26.

The document analyzes how 'Big Polluters' across various sectors use 'net zero' targets as a form of greenwashing to delay real emission reductions. It identifies critical conceptual flaws in these plans, such as reliance on unproven geoengineering and carbon offsets, and details how these corporations influence political and academic institutions to validate their agendas. Case studies on companies like Shell, Total SA, and JBS illustrate the gap between public commitments and actual business operations, while the report calls for a transition to 'Real Zero' by 2030.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delaying, distracting, and derailing progressive legislation to protect profits and maintain a linear economy. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, finding them largely non-binding and lacking transparency. The document details how industry groups use 'greenwashing' tactics—such as promoting chemical recycling and bioplastics—to divert attention from the need for mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Schemes (DRS). Case studies across 15 countries, including the US, EU, China, and Kenya, illustrate how corporations lobby against bans on single-use plastics and shift responsibility to consumers. The report concludes that voluntary initiatives have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including high collection targets, virgin plastic taxes, and a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The document argues that the plastic industry uses a 'manual' of delay, distraction, and derailment tactics to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulations. It analyzes voluntary commitments from ten major polluters and over 50 collective initiatives, concluding that they lack transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. The report highlights how companies promote 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and bio-based plastics while lobbying against deposit return systems and mandatory collection targets. Case studies across 15 countries demonstrate a pattern of corporate hypocrisy, where companies may support legislation in the EU while fighting it in Africa, China, and the US.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delay, distraction, and derailment to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulation. It finds that voluntary commitments from major polluters are often 'paper promises' lacking transparency and accountability, while group initiatives serve as a 'smokescreen' for continued plastic production. The document calls for robust, mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and virgin-plastic taxes, to address the crisis.

The document details the environmental failures of ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd (AMSA) at its Vanderbijlpark facility, citing extensive air and water pollution, groundwater contamination, and a lack of transparency regarding climate risks. It highlights AMSA's status as one of South Africa's top 10 greenhouse gas emitters and its resistance to carbon taxes and air quality standards.

The report finds that ten companies were responsible for an estimated two-thirds of the health damage caused by EU coal power plants in 2016, including 7,600 premature deaths. RWE is identified as the most harmful company, with health costs of €5.4 billion in 2016. The analysis highlights that for many companies, the health costs imposed on society are similar in magnitude to the revenues they earn from selling coal-fired electricity. The report argues that companies are 'clinging to coal' through lack of retirement plans, continued investment in old plants, and lobbying for subsidies, and recommends a full phase-out of coal by 2030.

The report details severe pollution and health crises linked to Aditya Birla Group's viscose plants in India and Indonesia, highlighting discrepancies between the company's public sustainability image and the actual conditions on the ground.

The report alleges that Brookfield Asset Management oversaw the deforestation of approximately 9,000 hectares of the Brazilian Cerrado between 2012 and 2021 across eight farms, subsequently selling these assets in a 'slash and sell' strategy. It further details a case where a Brookfield-controlled firm was fined R$800,000 for slave labour offences at Fazenda Colorado and an attempt to evict the Kayabí Indigenous community from ancestral lands in the Amazon via the company Agropecuaria Vale do Ximari. The document highlights a contradiction between these actions and the public roles of Brookfield Chair Mark Carney, a co-founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), and the firm's ESG policies. It argues that voluntary initiatives like GFANZ are insufficient and calls for mandatory government legislation on environmental and human rights due diligence for the financial sector.