Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that Total's climate strategy is incompatible with the IEA's net-zero scenario, as the company continues to expand oil and gas production while allocating only a small fraction of investment to renewables. The text highlights a contradiction among major investors—including AXA, BNP Paribas, and Amundi—who claim climate commitments but voted in favor of Total's plan to protect short-term dividends.

The report characterizes "net zero" agendas as a "Great Cheat," asserting that they allow major polluters to continue emissions while relying on unproven technologies and flawed offsetting schemes. It details how these entities use lobbying, financial influence over academia, and corporate capture of international forums like the UNFCCC to displace real emission reductions. The document highlights specific failures in the plans of companies such as Shell, Total SA, and JBS, and calls for a transition to "Real Zero" by 2030 through systemic change and climate justice.

Reclaim Finance condemns the outcome of Total's general assembly, where over 90% of voting shareholders approved a climate plan that prioritizes hydrocarbon expansion over renewable energy. The statement highlights the contradiction between the public climate commitments of major investors like AXA, BNP Paribas, and Amundi and their support for Total's strategy, which allocates 80% of capital expenditure to oil and gas by 2030.

Friends of the Earth International criticizes the CBD's draft decision on biodiversity mainstreaming, asserting that it promotes 'greenwashing' and corporate power while failing to address the drivers of biodiversity loss. The statement argues that the draft relies on flawed mechanisms such as offsetting, ecosystem accounting, and voluntary certification schemes instead of enforceable regulations to limit resource extraction and corporate expansion into natural areas. It further contends that the proposal unfairly shifts the responsibility for sustainable consumption onto individual consumers and sidelines the role of indigenous peoples and local communities, who protect 80% of biodiversity-rich areas.

The editors of Climate and Development critique the Reuters "Hot List" of 1,000 influential climate scholars for significant underrepresentation of women and scholars from the Global South, calling for systemic reforms in academic publishing and citation to dismantle colonial models of scientific practice.

The author argues that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) is a 'glossy initiative' that prioritizes image over action. While the author welcomes the commitment to use low-overshoot decarbonisation scenarios and a conservative approach to negative emissions technologies, they highlight critical flaws: a three-year window until 2024 for banks to publish emissions reduction plans and the absence of explicit requirements to end coal financing or stop funding fossil fuel expansion. The text notes that 15 of the largest banks in the NZBA have provided US$ 1.2 trillion to fossil fuels since 2016, specifically citing Barclays and BNP Paribas. The author concludes that net-zero targets for 2050 are insufficient without immediate measures to phase out fossil fuel financing.

Reclaim Finance asserts that the EU sustainable taxonomy's climate mitigation and adaptation criteria have been watered down due to pressure from Member states and industry lobbies. The author claims the current proposal allows for the burning of all forest biomass and creates pathways for fossil gas and nuclear energy to be labeled as sustainable, thereby undermining the EU Sustainable Finance Strategy and contradicting scientific research.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the European Commission's 2021 delegated acts for the EU sustainable taxonomy, claiming that political and industrial pressure has overridden scientific criteria. The author asserts that the current framework allows for greenwashing by adopting weak bioenergy standards and leaving the door open for fossil gas and nuclear energy, which the author argues are incompatible with the Paris Agreement goals.

Reclaim Finance challenges Total SE's claims regarding its carbon neutrality ambitions and Scope 3 emission targets. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions will overshoot the 1.5°C trajectory by 200MT by 2030 and that its reported reductions in Europe are misleading. Reclaim Finance further criticizes Total's carbon intensity calculations for excluding non-fuel products and intermediate stages, concluding that the company's strategy is inadequate for limiting global temperature rise.

Carbon Market Watch expresses significant concerns regarding the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets' blueprint, stating that it risks creating a speculative financial market that benefits the financial sector more than the climate. The organization argues that scaling the market without first addressing systemic integrity issues, such as the lack of transparency and the use of low-quality offsets, could lead to widespread greenwashing and a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. It specifically opposes the use of biological carbon sinks for offsets due to non-permanence and measurement uncertainties, and rejects the introduction of core carbon spot and futures contracts as a means of increasing opacity.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Net-zero Asset Owner Alliance's (NZAOA) target setting protocol contains loopholes regarding divestment strategies, the use of unrealistic climate scenarios, the lack of mandatory absolute reduction targets, and the absence of measures against anti-climate lobbying.

The report critiques common climate scenarios, such as the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), for underestimating emissions and overestimating carbon capture to justify continued fossil fuel use. It argues that these scenarios often lead to warming above 2°C despite claims of alignment with the Paris Agreement. The author calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

The document identifies five 'traps' in climate scenarios—including the omission of non-combustion emissions, reliance on unproven negative emissions technologies, and underestimation of renewable energy—that lead to warming above 2°C. It specifically criticizes the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) and NGFS 'representative' scenarios for facilitating continued fossil fuel expansion. The author calls for financial actors to phase out fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

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.

The aviation sector has successfully lobbied the ICAO Council to change the CORSIA baseline to 2019 levels, effectively postponing the start of emission offsetting until at least 2024 due to the 2020 drop in flights. The author contends that this change is unnecessary given the low cost of offsets and that governments are failing by providing billions in bailouts—approximately 30 billion euros in the EU and 50 billion in the US—without binding environmental strings. The text calls for regional and national actions, such as kerosene taxes and the EU carbon market, to replace the failing global scheme.

The author contends that the military-industrial complex operates under a 'regime of exception' that allows it to evade environmental regulations and carbon accounting, specifically citing exemptions in the Kyoto Protocol. The text highlights the contradiction of using militarization to address climate-induced security threats while the military itself remains a massive emitter of greenhouse gases. It calls for a 'military degrowth' approach, including a moratorium on the arms race, to ensure that security strategies are compatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

The report critiques the 'corporate capture' of agroecology by three major global initiatives: the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Coalition for a New Economy of Food and Land Use (FOLU). It argues that these entities promote a restricted, 'junk' version of agroecology that focuses on productivity and technological innovation (such as precision agriculture and gene editing) rather than the social justice, redistribution of power, and food sovereignty central to genuine agroecology. The document concludes that these corporate-led models aim to 'change everything so that nothing changes,' preserving the dominance of transnational agribusiness while adopting a 'green' veneer.

The report critiques 'junk agroecology,' a corporate-led interpretation of agroecology promoted by initiatives like the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the New Food and Land Use Economy Coalition (FOLU). It argues that these entities use agroecological language to mask a commitment to 'productivism' and 'sustainable agricultural intensification,' focusing on increasing yields through technology and market inclusion rather than the redistribution of power and resources. The authors contrast this with a transformative vision of agroecology that emphasizes food sovereignty, social justice, and the rights of small-scale producers.

The author contends that the EU's current trade policy is characterized by an 'inertia' that prioritizes unconditional liberalization over environmental and social goals. While the EU aims for carbon neutrality via the Green Deal, its trade framework continues to promote 'new generation' bilateral agreements that limit state sovereignty through investor-state dispute settlements and 'living agreements' that bypass democratic control. The text argues that the EU remains a net importer of carbon, with one-third of its footprint stemming from imports, and calls for a shift toward trade regulation that conditions market access on the achievement of environmental and social objectives.

A coalition of 32 NGOs supports a total ban on intentionally added microplastics in the EU to prevent irreversible environmental pollution. While endorsing ECHA's risk assessment that no 'safe level' of microplastics exists, the NGOs argue that proposed exemptions for 'biodegradable' plastics and long transitional periods for cosmetics and fertilizers would undermine the restriction's effectiveness.