Search Climate Insights Directory

In 2024, the oil and gas industry showed a marked preference for offshore development, with all twelve projects reaching a positive Final Investment Decision (FID) being offshore. New discoveries were heavily concentrated, with 85% of the volume found in just ten offshore fields, including the Nokhatha field in Kuwait and the Mopane field in Namibia. Startups were also dominated by offshore activity, which accounted for 71% of the total volume of field startups, including six projects in China. The report highlights significant environmental risks across the project lifecycle, from seismic noise pollution during exploration to the long-term danger of leaky wells during decommissioning. It further argues that the industry's focus on 'low emissions intensity' ignores scope three emissions, which constitute 80% to 85% of lifecycle emissions, and warns that these investments conflict with the scientific consensus on climate goals.

The document analyzes the 'responsible' employee savings fund offerings of major French account holders, finding that these funds often include investments in companies developing new fossil fuel projects incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit. It highlights a gap between marketing claims and actual investment practices, specifically citing Crédit Agricole and Société Générale.

The document outlines how a proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty would fill a regulatory void by focusing on the supply side of fossil fuels, which is not explicitly addressed in the Paris Agreement or UNFCCC. It proposes a 'coalition of the willing' approach to set high ambition standards, using majority decision-making to avoid the consensus-based deadlocks of the UNFCCC. The treaty aims to end new fossil fuel expansion, phase out existing projects in line with a 1.5°C limit, and provide financial and technical support for a just transition for dependent communities and workers.

The document proposes a new binding legal instrument, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to accelerate the phase-out of coal, oil, and gas. It argues that while the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC provide a general framework for climate action, they lack specific mechanisms to regulate the supply side of fossil fuels. The proposed treaty would focus on three pillars: ending new fossil fuel projects, phasing out existing infrastructure aligned with a 1.5 °C limit, and ensuring a just transition for dependent communities. Unlike the consensus-based decision-making of the UNFCCC, the treaty would employ a 'Coalition of the Willing' approach and majority voting to prevent a small number of states from blocking ambitious action.

The briefing reports a significant industry shift toward offshore oil and gas extraction in 2024, with the vast majority of new discoveries, project approvals, and startups occurring in the oceans. It highlights that 85% of new discoveries by volume were concentrated in ten offshore fields, including major finds in Kuwait and Namibia. The document warns that these developments are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C and pose severe risks to marine ecosystems through noise pollution, habitat loss, and potential oil spills throughout the project lifecycle.

ClientEarth argues that the 'recklessness standard' in English law already protects companies from liability for honest but incorrect forward-looking statements in transition plans. It contends that detailed transition planning reduces risks related to greenwashing, breach of duty, and human rights harms, and opposes the introduction of 'safe-harbours' which would undermine market integrity.

The statement asserts that oil and gas developers are locking in emissions that threaten the ability to maintain manageable global warming levels. It argues that because major oil and gas companies cannot be expected to lead a transition, financial institutions must stop supporting the development of new oil and gas fields and new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals.

The statement contends that integrated oil and gas majors are not transitioning to sustainable energy and should be excluded from financial support. Citing the Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL), it highlights that 95% of oil and gas companies worldwide have plans for new projects, with major European firms like BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies increasing production or expanding short-term plans. The author argues that these companies are diverting capital away from clean energy, with the three European majors projected to allocate less than a third of future investments to low-carbon activities, contradicting IEA 1.5°C scenarios.

The report finds that while many global banks have committed to net-zero by 2050, their disclosures lack standardisation and transparency. Key issues include inconsistent sectoral coverage, the omission of facilitated emissions, and a failure to align sectoral targets with 1.5°C benchmarks. The report highlights that a significant portion of bank balance sheets remains uncovered by net-zero targets and that current levels of sustainable finance are insufficient to meet the 10-to-1 clean energy to fossil fuel investment ratio recommended by the IEA.

The document outlines seven criteria for 'health-inclusive' NDCs, including alignment with 1.5°C warming limits, healthcare sector adaptation, and the reduction of super-pollutants. It provides a roadmap for civil society to engage governments, suggests interministerial coordination strategies, and identifies common barriers—such as ministerial silos and lack of data—alongside corresponding solutions to ensure health is prioritised in national climate plans.

The report identifies a massive boom in LNG infrastructure, with 156 new terminals planned by 2030, supported by hundreds of billions of dollars from global banks and investors. Despite IEA guidance that new export terminals are unnecessary for net zero, financing has increased, led primarily by US and Japanese banks and US-based investors, with almost no financial institutions effectively restricting services for LNG expansion.

The report finds that Canadian financial institutions are major global contributors to LNG expansion, with nine banks providing US$16.7 billion and 21 investors holding US$15.8 billion in LNG assets between 2021 and May 2024. Despite commitments to a 1.5°C pathway, major banks like RBC and Scotiabank have increased their financing for LNG export development. The document highlights the climate risks of this expansion, including methane leakage and the potential for stranded assets, particularly in Europe. It calls for an immediate end to financial services for new LNG projects and the adoption of transition plans aligned with the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario.

The report examines the role of Italian financial institutions in funding the global expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG). It finds that between 2021 and 2023, 12 Italian banks provided US$6 billion to the top 150 LNG developers, with Intesa Sanpaolo and UniCredit accounting for over 85% of this total. The document highlights a gap between these banks' net-zero pledges and their continued financing of LNG projects, including support for Eni and Enel. It warns that this support risks creating stranded assets and locking in long-term fossil fuel reliance, particularly in Europe where gas consumption is declining.

The report finds that US financial institutions are primary drivers of global LNG expansion, providing billions in financing and investments despite climate pledges. Between 2021 and 2023, 85 US banks provided US$51.2 billion to LNG expansion, with six major banks accounting for 80% of this total. US investors held US$179.6 billion in assets of top LNG developers as of May 2024. The document highlights a significant gap between these institutions' net-zero commitments and their actual policies, which lack restrictions on LNG. It warns that new LNG infrastructure risks creating stranded assets, particularly in Europe, and contributes to substantial greenhouse gas emissions, including high levels of methane leakage from US shale gas fields.

The document establishes a reference framework for financial actors to evaluate power utility transition plans across four categories: emissions reduction, energy planning, capital expenditure (CAPEX), and climate planning. It argues that for a plan to be 1.5°C-aligned, utilities must commit to a carbon-neutral power sector by 2035 in Europe and OECD countries (2040 elsewhere), implement plant-by-plant closure plans for fossil fuels without sales or conversions, and dedicate over 86% of CAPEX to sustainable technologies by 2030. The guide also recommends that financial institutions implement sectoral exclusion policies for fossil gas and achieve a 6:1 financing ratio in favor of sustainable power over fossil fuels by 2030.

The guide outlines a two-step process for choosing climate scenarios that accurately reflect the requirements for climate mitigation. First, it advises avoiding scenarios from entities with conflicts of interest, such as oil and gas companies, in favor of independent bodies like the IEA or IPCC. Second, it mandates that a robust scenario must have at least a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or low temperature overshoot to avoid irreversible tipping points. Finally, the guide warns against scenarios that rely heavily on negative emissions technologies, such as BECCS and CCS, suggesting specific IPCC feasibility thresholds (e.g., 3 Gt CO2/year for BECCS by 2050) to filter out unrealistic pathways that may delay the phase-out of heavy emitting industries.

The We Mean Business Coalition urges G20 leaders to lead the global response to the climate crisis by delivering on COP28 agreements, specifically through the submission of sector-specific, 1.5°C-aligned NDCs and the mobilization of climate finance to catalyze private investment in developing economies.

The report finds that Australia, Canada, and the UK (the "Big Three") have historically and currently dominated fossil fuel extraction emissions within the Commonwealth. While these wealthy nations have the highest emissions, they are the least economically dependent on fossil fuel rents. In contrast, lower- and middle-income countries like Nigeria and Papua New Guinea are more exposed to financial risks from carbon liabilities. The report concludes that Commonwealth production plans are inconsistent with the 1.5°C goal, with the Big Three's share of the gap between Business as Usual and Net Zero scenarios exceeding 50%.

Reclaim Finance analyzed the decarbonization targets of 30 major banks, finding that most are overly complex and fail to link target achievement with actual corporate emission reductions. The report specifically criticizes the use of financed or facilitated emissions, which can be influenced by corporate value changes rather than emissions, and recommends shifting toward targets based on reduced finance for fossil fuel companies, physical intensity for industrial sectors, and absolute emissions without value-based attribution.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE for continuing to rely on fossil gas for over 50% of its 100 GW installed capacity and for pursuing new gas projects, such as the conversion of the Mejillones plant in Chile and a new plant in Nijmegen, Netherlands. The report highlights that French banks provided $3.4 billion to ENGIE between 2019 and 2023, representing one-third of its total funding, yet most lack robust sectoral policies to exclude gas power. Specifically, it notes that Société Générale's exclusion policy for Combined-Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) is ineffective because its emission threshold of 420 kg CO2-eq/MWh is higher than current CCGT emissions. Reclaim Finance calls on these banks to cease funding new gas projects and demand a transition plan that triples renewable capacity by 2030 instead of merely doubling it.