Search Climate Insights Directory

The September 2025 Carbon Minefields monitor reports that while licensing activity may decline slightly compared to 2024, significant global expansion continues. In August 2025, 8,700 square kilometers of acreage were awarded, with oil and gas volumes reaching their highest point for this stage of the year in five years. Over the past 12 months, 492 new licences were awarded, which could emit 1,777.8 MtCO2 if fully combusted. National oil companies (NOCs) are key drivers, acquiring over one third of these licences and accounting for half of global production. Future outlooks indicate 77 licences currently open or under evaluation and 454 additional blocks in planning, with China having the largest planned block emissions at approximately 2,670.4 MtCO2.

The We Mean Business Coalition states that current national climate plans, including those from China and the EU, fall short of the requirements for a 1.5 °C pathway and create investment uncertainty due to the use of ambition ranges rather than fixed commitments.

Reclaim Finance asserts that ING's 2025 Climate Update fails to introduce new policies and obscures the bank's ongoing support for fossil fuel developers. The report highlights that ING continues to provide corporate financing for LNG infrastructure and is a major lender to Venture Global. Furthermore, it claims ING misleadingly uses its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validation while ignoring the July 2025 Net-Zero Standard for Financial Institutions, which requires the exclusion of financing for companies developing new coal, oil, or gas projects by 2030.

The report advocates for Australia to set a 2035 emissions reduction target of at least 75% below 2005 levels, aligning with a 1.5°C pathway. It argues that such a target provides the predictability businesses need for capital allocation and infrastructure investment, while mitigating risks associated with fossil fuel dependence. The authors propose a comprehensive implementation framework including sectoral pathways, a National Climate Investment and Accountability Council, and blended finance platforms to drive the transition.

The briefing evaluates the draft second NDC from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the recommendations from the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), arguing that the DFFE's targets lack sufficient ambition and scientific justification compared to the PCC's evidence-based approach.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) lacks credibility in its responsible investment strategy due to its continued support for oil and gas expansion. The organization highlights that the CDC's 2024 responsible investment report fails to end new investments in fossil fuel developers, such as TotalEnergies, and relies on an ineffective shareholder dialogue process. Reclaim Finance urges the CDC to cease new investments in these companies, vote against their management, and implement stricter climate criteria for its external asset managers, who manage 10 billion euros of its portfolio.

Reclaim Finance disputes claims by Banque Populaire Caisse d’Epargne (BPCE) that it is reducing fossil fuel financing, asserting that BPCE's reporting excludes critical activities like gas liquefaction and bond underwriting. The document argues that BPCE's renewable energy targets are insufficient for a 1.5°C pathway and that the bank applies a double standard by aggregating financing types when reporting renewable investments but rejecting the same method for fossil fuel reporting.

The report finds that Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the FRR continue to invest hundreds of millions of euros in fossil fuels and lack robust commitments to stop funding new oil and gas projects. In contrast, Ircantec is highlighted as a positive example for its strict fossil fuel exclusion policy. The report also criticizes these institutions for delegating the majority of their assets to external managers, such as BlackRock and JP Morgan, who often oppose climate goals or have retreated from ESG commitments. Furthermore, the report notes significant gaps in transparency, particularly regarding the publication of portfolio compositions and voting records at general meetings.

The report finds that emission targets in the tech sector are losing meaning as actual emissions rise and accounting frameworks remain inconsistent. While some companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple are implementing promising renewable energy and supply chain strategies, these are not yet industry standards. The document warns that 1.5 °C-aligned validations may mislead stakeholders by ignoring rising emissions and recommends transition-specific targets, robust electricity accounting standards, and government regulation of energy consumption growth.

The Corporate Responsibility Monitor 2025 finds that the tech sector faces a credibility crisis as AI growth drives exponential energy demand and emissions. The report argues that current accounting practices, which favor market-based over location-based reporting, obscure the true environmental impact of tech giants. While some companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple show early leadership in renewable energy procurement and supply chain employment, the sector generally lacks transparency regarding third-party data centers, mineral sourcing, and device lifespans. The document calls for the GHG-Protocol and SBTi to mandate location-based reporting and for companies to adopt 24/7 renewable energy procurement targets to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's guide outlines a comprehensive framework for bank transition disclosures, focusing on the decarbonisation of banking books. It establishes best practices across six key areas: commitment, baselines and targets, delivery strategy, aspects beyond emissions, governance, and reporting. The guidance emphasizes the need for banks to disclose both financed and facilitated emissions, benchmark trajectories against credible sectoral pathways, and implement specific phase-out dates for misaligned activities like unabated coal and new oil and gas exploration. It also integrates requirements for just transition principles and climate resilience, while urging alignment between transition plans and formal financial reporting to ensure credibility.

A June 2025 survey of 1,018 representative French adults shows overwhelming public support for corporate accountability. 86% agree that public authorities should enforce common transparency and prevention rules for companies, 81% believe multinationals should be responsible for the impacts of their subsidiaries and partners, and 90% support mandatory transition plans to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

IISD recommends that the UK join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, close licensing loopholes, end development consents for new oil and gas fields, and replace the 'maximising economic recovery' objective of the North Sea Transition Authority with a mandate for a managed decline in production.

Reclaim Finance disputes the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations' (CDC) justifications for its lack of transparency and argues that the CDC's shareholder engagement strategy is insufficient to stop investment in fossil fuel expansion. The document highlights a conflict between the CDC's secrecy and recommendations from the Cour des Comptes, while clarifying discrepancies in the reporting of fossil fuel exposure figures.

The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has voted to replace mandatory requirements for reducing client emissions with 'best practice' advice and has removed the obligation for banks to align with the 1.5°C warming limit and 2050 carbon neutrality goal. The new guidelines allow banks to align with a 'warming well below 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C' and let them choose their own target year for carbon neutrality. Reclaim Finance argues this shift ignores current climate science and suggests banks are now following existing economic emission trends rather than actively modifying them to accelerate the transition.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) for proposing a new protocol that replaces mandatory 1.5°C alignment with a non-binding goal of limiting warming to "well below 2°C, striving for 1.5°C." The document asserts that removing the 1.5°C requirement and the 2050 net zero target is an act of irresponsibility that contradicts UN climate agreements and the IPCC's findings on the necessity of the 1.5°C limit to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. It further argues that the NZBA's justification—that the world is not on track for 1.5°C—is an excuse to avoid the financial sector's responsibility to accelerate the energy transition by reallocating capital from high- to low-polluting activities.

Reclaim Finance calls on investors to vote against strategic resolutions at 2025 annual general meetings for major oil and gas companies, arguing that traditional shareholder engagement has failed to align these firms with a 1.5°C trajectory. The document highlights that 95% of oil and gas companies continue developing new projects and that some majors, such as BP, TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor, are increasing production or weakening climate targets. It advocates for using opposition votes as an effective lever to signal that climate priorities must be integrated into corporate strategy.

Reclaim Finance calls on investors to shift from ineffective shareholder engagement to voting against management-proposed resolutions at 2025 AGMs for oil and gas companies. The organization highlights that 95% of upstream oil and gas companies are developing new projects despite IPCC and IEA warnings that such expansion is incompatible with a 1.5°C world. It specifically notes that majors like BP, TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor are backtracking on climate commitments by planning production increases. The document asserts that current collaborative initiatives, such as Climate Action 100+, have failed to align corporate strategies with 1.5°C trajectories, making strategic voting a necessary lever to signal that climate must be an integral part of corporate strategy.

The report outlines a systematic approach to estimating top-down climate finance needs, distinguishing them from bottom-up needs derived from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). CPI's methodology involves collecting data from nearly 100 reports, standardizing sector classifications using its Global Landscape of Climate Finance (GLCF) taxonomy, and harmonizing timeframes, currencies, and value types. The document emphasizes that annual climate finance flows must increase significantly, reaching USD 7.5 trillion per year by 2030 and over USD 8.8 trillion per year from 2031 to 2050. It also addresses data gaps in sectors like aviation and wastewater, the inclusion of non-climate solutions like fossil fuel deployment, and the necessity of redirecting capital from high-carbon activities to meet net-zero targets.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that the UK must go beyond ending new exploration licenses to truly align with 1.5°C pathways. Key recommendations include ending development consents for new fields, closing loopholes for license extensions and transfers, and replacing the North Sea Transition Authority's 'maximising economic recovery' objective with one focused on a managed decline of production. IISD also urges the UK to join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) to solidify its global leadership.