Search Climate Insights Directory

National wind targets from 70 countries and the EU aim for a collective capacity of 2,157 GW by 2030, which represents a 2.4x increase from 2022 but falls short of the 2,742 GW required for a tripling. While global forecasts suggest these targets are achievable in aggregate, this is primarily due to China's expected over-performance; most other countries are projected to fall short of their own targets. The report highlights significant implementation gaps in the US and India, while noting that Brazil and Türkiye are likely to exceed their targets due to low initial ambition.

An analysis of five leading private infrastructure firms—Macquarie Asset Management, Global Infrastructure Partners, Stonepeak, IFM Investors, and I Squared Capital—reveals a total lack of sectoral policies to prevent investment in fossil fuel expansion. Despite the sector's growth, with global assets under management surpassing US$1 trillion in 2023, these firms continue to invest heavily in midstream infrastructure and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, posing a risk to the global carbon budget.

Reclaim Finance analysed the 2024 AGM votes of Amundi, the largest European asset manager, across six major oil and gas companies. The analysis finds that Amundi consistently supports the financial accounts of these firms and the re-election of most directors despite their climate strategies being incompatible with a 1.5°C trajectory. The report highlights a particular lack of scrutiny for TotalEnergies, where Amundi is the largest shareholder and voted in favour of all resolutions. While Amundi voted against some chairs and remuneration packages at Shell and BP, it provided no public climate-related justification for these decisions, leading to ambiguity regarding its motivations.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Amundi, Europe's largest asset manager, for its inconsistent and insufficient voting practices at the 2024 general assemblies of major European oil and gas companies. The analysis finds that Amundi frequently supports the reelection of directors and financial accounts of companies like TotalEnergies, Shell, and BP, despite these firms lacking climate plans aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory. While Amundi opposed some leadership reelections at Shell and BP, the lack of public justification leaves it unclear if these votes were based on climate concerns or general governance. Reclaim Finance calls for Amundi to implement systematic climate criteria that trigger automatic votes against resolutions when companies continue fossil fuel expansion.

The document criticizes the financing of the Stade LNG terminal in Germany, arguing that such projects create an unnecessary dependence on fossil gas and contradict climate goals. It highlights a disconnect between banks' public climate commitments and their continued funding of LNG import and export infrastructure.

Between 2021 and 2023, commercial banks from G7 countries provided $101 billion to the coal industry, with US and Japanese banks leading the funding. The report highlights that this financing far exceeds the G7-led funding promised for Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) in developing nations. It criticizes the G7's goal of phasing out coal by the first half of the 2030s as insufficient to meet the 1.5°C warming limit and calls for strict capital requirements and bans on coal developers.

ClientEarth and Carbon Tracker Initiative argue that the PRMS 2018 framework is 'climate-blind' and fails to account for the energy transition, risking the accumulation of stranded assets. They propose introducing an 'atmospheric viability' test to determine if reserves are compatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and suggest comprehensive updates to 'defined conditions' and 'commerciality' criteria to include physical and transition climate risks.

The report evaluates the transition plans of Enel, ENGIE, EPH, Iberdrola, and Statkraft, finding that none have committed to phasing out fossil gas power in Europe or the OECD by 2035. While Iberdrola and Statkraft are highlighted as following better practices by focusing on sustainable power solutions, EPH is identified as an industry laggard with a strategy heavily reliant on coal and gas. Enel and ENGIE are described as having conflicting strategies that combine renewable growth with continued fossil gas development and reliance on immature technologies like hydrogen and CCUS. The analysis emphasizes that current CAPEX allocations for several utilities remain too high for fossil fuels to meet the IEA's Net-zero Emissions by 2050 scenario.

A collaboration between University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) asserts that existing fossil fuel capacity is sufficient to meet energy demand under 1.5°C-aligned scenarios. The authors propose a "No New Fossil Fuels" norm as a politically and legally feasible first step toward a full transition, noting that peer-reviewed science indicates no room for new oil and gas fields or coal- and gas-fired power plants.

The Fossil to Clean campaign, led by the We Mean Business Coalition, seeks to accelerate the transition to a net-zero future by mobilizing businesses to signal demand for fossil fuel phase-out and urging governments to implement supportive policies. The campaign focuses on ensuring the 2025 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) include specific fossil fuel phase-out targets aligned with 1.5°C pathways. In 2023, the campaign mobilized over 200 companies with annual revenues exceeding US$1.5 trillion to advocate for the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels and the tripling of renewable energy capacity.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative proposes a framework for a global treaty to end the expansion of oil, gas, and coal. Based on 20 global consultations, the document argues that the treaty must be built on three core values—justice, rights, and public goods—to avoid replicating colonial and corporate domination. It emphasizes a 'bottom up' approach to ensure the participation of marginalized groups and Indigenous Peoples from the outset. The proposed framework rests on three pillars: a just transition for workers and communities, the non-proliferation of new fossil fuel exploration, and a fair phase-out of existing production aligned with the 1.5C goal.

The Climate Bonds Initiative introduces a tool for financial institutions to evaluate corporate transition maturity across five categories, ranging from 'No Action' to 'Net Zero Achieved'. The system uses specific indicators across commitment, emission targets, implementation strategies, governance, and performance to determine if a company's financing can be labeled as 'transition finance' or 'green finance'. It emphasizes the need for science-based benchmarks, trackable annual actions, and board-level governance, while providing a weighted scoring method for companies with multiple business activities.

The report asserts that limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires a drastic reduction in oil and gas production, potentially between 58% and 99% by 2050. It highlights a significant 'production gap,' noting that current government plans for 2030 exceed 1.5°C-consistent levels by 29% for oil and 82% for gas. The document advocates for a 'just transition' that prioritizes phase-outs in developed and low-dependency economies while providing financial and technical support to the Global South. Key recommendations include ending new field development, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and transforming national oil companies into clean energy entities.

The G7 is urged to set a goal to triple its renewable energy capacity by 2030, as current collective targets only aim for a doubling. This alignment is presented as necessary to meet the global goal agreed upon at COP28 and to keep the 1.5C temperature goal within reach.

Reclaim Finance calls for a radical change in investor engagement with the oil and gas industry, arguing that current practices have failed to align the sector with a 1.5°C trajectory. The organization recommends that investors suspend new investments and use strategic routine votes—such as those for director re-election, remuneration, financial accounts, and dividends—to sanction companies continuing fossil fuel expansion. It specifically targets proxy advisors like ISS and Glass Lewis for failing to support climate action and suggests that dividends should be opposed unless 50% of capital expenditure is dedicated to sustainable energy.

The guide establishes a methodology for assessing corporate climate responsibility across four key areas: emissions tracking and disclosure, target setting, emission reduction measures, and responsibility for unabated and residual emissions. It emphasizes alignment with 1.5°C-compatible pathways, the necessity of covering all emission scopes (including Scope 3), and the distinction between genuine emission reductions and misleading offsetting or 'insetting' claims. The document provides specific benchmarks for various industrial sectors and detailed criteria for high-integrity renewable electricity procurement and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies.

The report highlights a policy gap in the operations of Allianz, Aviva, AXA, and Generali, noting that while these firms have pledged net zero emissions by 2050 and agreed to stop underwriting new oil and gas fields, they continue to provide capital to fossil fuel developers through bond purchases and asset management subsidiaries. It further criticizes these insurers for voting in favor of inadequate climate plans and executive remuneration at annual general meetings of oil and gas companies.

Reclaim Finance argues that current investor engagement strategies, including the Climate Action 100+ initiative, have failed to produce meaningful climate action from the oil and gas sector. The organization highlights that most companies continue fossil fuel expansion and maintain minimal investment in clean energy despite high profits. Consequently, Reclaim Finance calls on asset managers to escalate their tactics by suspending new investments, voting against strategic routine resolutions, and issuing public statements to sanction companies that refuse to stop developing new upstream and midstream projects.

The Carlyle Group, a major private equity firm with US$382 billion in assets under management, is accused of maintaining a fossil fuel-heavy portfolio that contradicts its net-zero 2050 commitment. Research indicates Carlyle invests sixteen dollars in fossil fuels for every one dollar invested in renewable energy. A key example is Neptune Energy, a company co-founded by Carlyle that continues upstream oil and gas expansion, including in the Barents Sea. The document highlights that Carlyle's shareholders, including major asset managers like BlackRock and Amundi, overwhelmingly supported the re-election of board members at the most recent Annual General Meeting, thereby endorsing a strategy that lacks a public fossil fuel policy and fails to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

The document critiques the current state of financial sector decarbonization targets, arguing that reliance on 'financed emissions' metrics—specifically those using Enterprise Value Including Cash (EVIC)—allows banks to report emissions reductions based on stock market volatility rather than actual decarbonization. It highlights how banks like Deutsche Bank and Crédit Agricole met targets early due to soaring energy stock prices in 2022. The author warns against 'gaming' metrics through concepts like 'energy mix' targets or 'Expected Emission Reduction' (EER) and calls for a comprehensive dashboard of absolute targets, facilitated emissions tracking, and strict exclusion policies for fossil fuel expansion.