Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds a systemic lack of methane accountability among top US and European supermarkets, with none of the 20 largest retailers setting specific methane reduction targets despite the significant impact of animal agriculture on global heating.

The 2024 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard reveals that 21 analyzed private equity firms are responsible for an estimated 1.17 gigatons of annual emissions from upstream operations, LNG terminals, and coal plants. The report argues that the industry's lack of transparency and continued investment in fossil fuels obstruct the global transition to a 1.5°C warming scenario. It ranks firms from 'B' to 'F', with EIG Global Energy Partners receiving the lowest grade due to its high emissions and low alignment with climate demands. The authors call for mandatory disclosures and a just transition for workers and impacted communities.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) produced a scorecard to assess political parties' positions on basic income grants (BIG) in South Africa. The analysis focuses on whether parties commit to expanding the social protection floor, providing adequate grant values, ensuring universal eligibility for adults aged 18-59, and removing conditionalities. The report highlights a wide disparity in party commitments, with Action SA, the ANC, and GOOD scoring highly for their progressive proposals, while many other parties either lack a clear policy or propose conditional grants that UBIC argues could increase exclusion and dependency.

The Private Equity Labor Scorecard evaluates eleven major US private equity firms, finding that all received a grade of 'C' or lower, with seven failing. The report identifies a pattern of hazardous labor practices, including significant OSHA and wage violations, mass layoffs, and a lack of union presence in many portfolios. It argues that these practices create financial and reputational risks for investors, particularly pension funds, and calls for the adoption of portfolio-wide labor standards.

The 2023 Clean Air NDC Scorecard reveals a significant gap in the integration of air quality and health into national climate plans, with an average score of 3.5/15 across 170 analysed NDCs. Low- and middle-income countries generally outperform high-income countries, with Colombia and Mali achieving the highest scores (12/15). Conversely, several high-emitting nations, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, scored 0/15. The analysis highlights a critical disconnect in countries with high air pollution mortality, such as North Korea and the Solomon Islands, where NDCs fail to recognise the links between climate action and healthy air.

The 2023 CleanAir NDC Scorecard reveals a significant gap between national climate pledges and the integration of air quality and health. While most NDCs mention air pollution, few quantify health impacts or set forward-looking targets. Low- and middle-income countries generally score higher than high-income nations, though many still face high air pollution mortality rates, highlighting a need for increased international finance to translate commitments into action.

The 2022 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard evaluates eight major private equity firms, finding that most maintain significant fossil fuel holdings and lack transparency. The Carlyle Group ranked lowest (F), while TPG earned a B due to a smaller fossil fuel portfolio. The report advocates for five primary demands, including alignment with 1.5°C warming targets and full disclosure of emissions and fossil fuel exposure.

The Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard 2022 evaluates eight major private equity firms on their fossil fuel exposure, downstream emissions, and alignment with science-based climate targets. The analysis finds that most of these firms maintain significant fossil fuel holdings and lack transparency, with The Carlyle Group ranking lowest (F) and TPG Capital ranking highest (B). The report argues that private equity firms often acquire polluting assets shed by public markets, thereby increasing climate and financial risks while operating with minimal regulatory oversight. It concludes with five primary demands for the industry, including aligning with 1.5°C warming targets and disclosing full fossil fuel exposure.

The 2022 scorecard by Reclaim Finance finds that 30 of the world's largest asset managers hold US$ 550bn in major fossil fuel developers and generally fail to restrict investments in new coal, oil, and gas projects. Despite many pledging carbon neutrality by 2050, the report argues their engagement policies are 'toothless,' lacking clear demands for absolute emission reductions or the cessation of new supply projects. Passive investment is highlighted as a significant loophole, with most managers failing to apply exclusion rules to their passive portfolios.

The report finds a significant gap between the long-term net-zero commitments of major asset managers and their actual investment practices, particularly regarding coal. Most analyzed managers lack robust coal exclusion policies, and 'passive' index investments—which represent nearly half of the assets under management in the sample—are largely exempt from climate criteria, leaving them highly exposed to the coal sector.

The 2020 Scorecard reveals a growing trend of insurers retreating from coal, with at least 23 companies ending or limiting cover for coal projects. While coal insurance is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain, the report finds that the industry has largely failed to take comprehensive action on oil and gas. European and Australian insurers are leading the transition, whereas companies in the U.S., Japan, and the Lloyd's market are identified as laggards. The report also highlights a significant increase in coal divestment, with 65 insurers now having policies covering over $12 trillion in assets.

G20 governments provided an annual average of $584 billion in support for fossil fuels from 2017 to 2019, with oil and gas production receiving the largest share. While overall support dropped by 9% compared to 2014–2016, this decline was inconsistent across countries and partly driven by lower oil prices. The report finds that state-owned enterprise (SOE) investment is the only support mechanism that increased overall, and that COVID-19 recovery packages have introduced at least $170 billion in new commitments to fossil fuel-intensive sectors, threatening to undo previous progress.

Brazil ranks first among non-OECD G20 countries in the scorecard due to low support for coal and fossil fuel-based power, though it continues to provide significant funding for oil and gas production. While state-owned enterprise investments in fossil fuels decreased by 23% compared to the 2014–2016 average, the country faces criticism for a lack of transparency and the implementation of new tax incentives to boost oil and gas production.

Japan is ranked second among G20 OECD member countries for its low level of support for fossil fuel use, yet it remains the second-highest supplier of public finance for fossil fuel projects. While overall support dropped by 48%, Japan increased public finance for coal production by 944% relative to the 2014–2016 average. The document highlights significant transparency gaps and the continued funding of coal and LNG projects in countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

China provides the largest amount of fossil fuel support among G20 countries, averaging USD 134.2 billion annually from 2017 to 2019. While ranked highly for transparency and commitments, China has seen a 35% increase in overall fossil fuel support relative to 2014–2016 averages, driven largely by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments in oil and gas production.

Italy provides an annual average of USD 13.7 billion in total government support to fossil fuels (2017–2019), dominated by USD 11.2 billion for fossil fuel consumption via tax credits and exemptions on diesel and petroleum. While Italy has phased out support for coal production, it increased public finance for fossil fuels by 33% between 2014 and 2018, primarily for oil and gas production. The document also notes a USD 3.3 billion COVID-19 bailout for Alitalia and describes Italy's transparency regarding environmentally harmful subsidies as mediocre.

The United Kingdom ranks last among G20 OECD member countries in the G20 Scorecard of Fossil Fuel Funding, with an overall score of 48/100. While overall support decreased by 21% compared to 20142016, the U.K. saw a 96% increase in public finance for fossil fuels and an 86% increase in support for coal production. The U.K. provides USD 9.2 billion annually in support for fossil fuel consumers through foregone tax revenue and has faced criticism for a lack of transparency regarding its export credit agency, UKEF, and its denial of providing fossil fuel subsidies under its own definitions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated Peabody Energy's climate actions from July 2016 to June 2018, finding that while the company follows best practices in political spending disclosure, it remains 'egregious' in its lack of emissions reduction targets and its support for the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. The company is criticized for downplaying climate science in public statements and maintaining leadership roles in trade associations that spread climate disinformation.

The WWF Polar Bear CAP Scorecard evaluates the initial implementation of the Circumpolar Action Plan from 2015 to 2017. It finds that while individual Range States have made progress in areas like population surveys and trade monitoring, overall progress is slow, with only 5% of total CAP actions completed. The report highlights significant gaps in joint circumpolar collaboration, transparency, and the integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, while urging a more strategic approach to address the primary threat of climate-driven sea ice loss.

The Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated ConocoPhillips across four metrics from July 2016 to June 2018. While the company showed improvements in climate risk disclosure and planning for carbon pollution, it received an 'Egregious' score for renouncing disinformation due to its continued leadership roles in trade associations that spread climate disinformation and its use of language that misrepresents climate science.