Search Climate Insights Directory

The We Mean Business Coalition criticizes the draft Global Stocktake text at COP28, stating that the shift from specific phaseout options to a 'meaningless wishlist of optional actions' fails to provide the clear signal necessary for business transformation and the 1.5ºC goal. The coalition urges countries to reject the draft in favor of science-based actions that mandate the phaseout of fossil fuels to align with the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that asset managers largely fail to use their voting power to oppose fossil fuel expansion, often supporting the governance and strategies of climate-hostile companies. Despite public commitments to climate action, the analysis reveals that most asset managers' voting policies lack robust, action-oriented criteria and that their actual voting records show high support for the re-election of directors and remuneration of executives at companies pursuing expansion plans incompatible with a 1.5°C scenario.

The document outlines the primary objectives of COP28, including the conclusion of the first global stocktake and negotiations over climate finance. It highlights controversies surrounding the summit's presidency and provides a reporting framework centered on the 1.5 degrees C target, climate justice, and the climate emergency.

The 2023 Production Gap Report reveals that governments plan to produce approximately 110% more fossil fuels by 2030 than is consistent with the 1.5°C temperature limit. Specifically, projections indicate 460% more coal, 29% more oil, and 82% more gas in 2030 compared to the 1.5°C pathway. The report notes that while major producers have pledged net-zero emissions, none have committed to production reductions aligned with the 1.5°C goal. To mitigate risks, the report recommends a near total phase-out of coal by 2040 and a three-quarters reduction in oil and gas production by 2050 from 2020 levels.

The document contends that qualifiers such as "unabated" and "inefficient" in climate policies allow the fossil fuel industry to maintain production and profits despite the 1.5C goal. It asserts that there is no globally agreed definition for "unabated" fossil fuels and that carbon capture and storage (CCS) remains unproven at scale. Similarly, the term "inefficient" regarding subsidies is viewed as vague, contributing to a surge in fossil fuel subsidies to over 7 trillion USD in 2022. The briefing calls for unambiguous language focusing on the absolute decline of both production and emissions to align with the Paris Agreement.

The Climate Bonds Initiative argues that Japan's GX plan requires strengthening in several key areas to be truly 1.5°C-aligned. Key recommendations include prioritizing established renewable technologies, setting a clear phase-out date for unabated coal power by 2035, strictly limiting gas investments, and tightening standards for low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia. The report emphasizes that the success of Japan's planned 20 trillion yen GX Economic Transition Bonds depends on rigorous alignment with scientific pathways to mobilize private capital and avoid stranded assets.

A coalition of NGOs calls on the EBRD to end all support for fossil fuels in its 2024-2028 Energy Sector Strategy, arguing that continued investment in gas infrastructure creates lock-in risks and contradicts the 1.5°C goal. The signatories request the exclusion of midstream and downstream gas projects, the removal of loopholes like "CCS-readiness," and the EBRD's accession to the Glasgow Statement.

Reclaim Finance argues that current financial engagement for climate action is limited, citing the failure of Climate Action 100+ to secure comprehensive transition plans from all target companies. The guide recommends that investors increase transparency, set time-bound public demands focused on 1.5°C alignment rather than mere transparency, and implement systematic annual escalation sanctions for non-compliance.

The report argues that the coal sector is not aligned with 1.5°C targets and poses significant financial risks, including over US$1.4 trillion in potential stranded assets. It recommends that banks immediately cease financing new coal projects and implement a timed escalation strategy to exit coal exposure by 2030 in OECD and European countries, and by 2040 worldwide. Key requirements for coal companies include the adoption of public, asset-by-asset phase-out plans and just transition strategies for workers and the environment.

The document argues that current climate stewardship is failing to align corporate strategies with the 1.5°C goal, citing the limited impact of initiatives like Climate Action 100+. It provides a detailed framework for credible engagement and voting policies, emphasizing the need for time-bound demands, systematic escalation strategies including divestment, and comprehensive reporting of both activity and outcome indicators. The guide also offers specific sectoral demands for high-emitting industries and guidance for corporate bondholders and asset owners.

The document is a formal letter from several NGOs to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) arguing that current SBTi guidelines are insufficient to meet the standards set by the UN High Level Expert Group's 'Integrity Matters' report. The authors identify gaps in environmental integrity, accountability, and credibility, specifically calling for a strict 1.5°C baseline, full Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and the phase-out of fossil fuels. They demand that SBTi increase transparency regarding company submissions and remove entities that fail to meet their commitments, citing JBS as an example of misleading claims.

The document urges companies to incorporate nature into their climate plans by reducing the 35% of global emissions linked to forestry, farming, and land use, while investing in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. It advocates for the use of the 4 A's of Climate Leadership framework to set 1.5°C-aligned science-based targets, specifically calling for the elimination of deforestation from supply chains by 2025. The guide highlights a significant funding gap, noting that nature-based solutions receive only 3% of climate finance despite representing 30% of the climate solution, with $350 billion needed annually by 2030 to end nature loss.

The document critiques the European Commission's proposal on ESG ratings, stating it fails to remedy fundamental problems like the lack of harmonized methodologies. Reclaim Finance proposes that the regulation be amended to include mandatory baseline standards—specifically aligning the 'E' factor with the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target—and minimum weighting thresholds (33% for E, 25% for S and G) to ensure ratings are not used as greenwashing tools.

The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme provides a voluntary labelling mechanism for debt instruments, assets, and entities to verify their alignment with climate goals, specifically limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The scheme has certified over USD270bn of Use of Proceeds Green Bonds since 2012. Certification is based on science-based eligibility criteria and is verified by independent Climate Bonds Approved Verifiers, with oversight provided by an international Climate Bonds Standard Board. For Use of Proceeds (UoP) instruments, certification is available for single debt instruments or programmatic issuances, covering both capital expenditure (Capex) and operational expenditure (Opex) for eligible green or transition assets. The process involves pre-issuance applications—requiring a Green Bond Framework, Certification Agreement, Certification Information Form, and Verification Report—followed by post-issuance verification to maintain the label's validity.

Reclaim Finance assesses the transition of Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) into its second phase (running until 2030), claiming the initiative's first phase was a failure. The organization highlights that most target companies have not aligned capital expenditure with a 1.5°C trajectory and that investors have failed to use voting power to sanction inadequate climate strategies. While noting new accountability requirements for lead investors, Reclaim Finance argues the framework remains too focused on disclosure rather than implementation and calls for robust escalation strategies and systematic sanctions for non-compliant companies.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the second phase of Climate Action 100+ (CA100+), stating that the coalition failed in its first phase to secure comprehensive net-zero targets or align corporate capital expenditure with 1.5°C goals. While welcoming new transparency requirements for lead investors, Reclaim Finance argues that the benchmark remains too focused on transparency rather than implementation and lacks systematic sanctions or exclusion mechanisms for non-compliant members and companies.

The Climate Bonds Initiative provides a voluntary certification scheme for sustainability-linked debt instruments, using science-based criteria to verify that corporate transition plans and performance targets are consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Certification is available for single instruments or programmatic series, provided the issuer is a legal entity and the activities fall under existing Climate Bonds Standard Sector Criteria. The scheme offers two labels: 'Aligned' (Level 1) for those already aligned with 1.5°C pathways, and 'Transition' (Level 2) for those with plans to achieve alignment by 2030. The process requires a Certification Agreement, a Certification Information Form, and a Verification Report, with mandatory annual verification.

Reclaim Finance analyzes the Ceres document "Key Elements for a Net Zero Transition at Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Companies," concluding that it favors "business as usual" for the fossil fuel industry. The analysis identifies seven key weaknesses, including the failure to require Scope 3 targets, the reliance on intensity-based rather than absolute emission targets, and a lack of restrictions on carbon offsets. Reclaim Finance asserts that the Ceres framework is influenced by industry players like ConocoPhillips and fails to meet the standards set by GFANZ, the IPCC, and the IEA, which necessitate absolute production cuts to maintain a 1.5°C pathway.

Reclaim Finance reports on the 2023 annual general meetings of six French financial actors, noting a generally hostile reception but highlighting specific outcomes. While Crédit Agricole acknowledged the need to stop increasing fossil fuel capacities to limit warming to 1.5°C, and SCOR committed to stop covering risks for new gas fields, BNP Paribas refused to set 'red lines' for its financing of oil and gas majors. AXA remains the last major European (re)insurer supporting new gas fields, defending the practice via the European taxonomy.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) establishes a screening process for sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) to ensure they drive genuine decarbonisation. Inclusion requires eligible debt instruments to be self-labelled as SLBs and provide public disclosure of sustainability performance targets (SPTs). CBI assesses these targets against 1.5°C-aligned sectoral pathways from CBI, the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), and CRREM. Bonds are categorized as 'Fully-aligned', 'Strongly-aligned', 'Aligning', or 'not-aligned' based on their adherence to these pathways and the presence of comprehensive transition plans. The methodology specifically mandates scope 3 emission targets for companies selling fossil fuel products and airports.