Search Climate Insights Directory

Climate researcher Julia Steinberger asserts that the latest IPCC report confirms that tackling fossil fuel production is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5C. She argues that current international frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, are insufficient because they do not explicitly address the production of coal, oil, and gas. To remedy this, she advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, a binding global agreement designed to coordinate an equitable phase-out of fossil fuels. The author also links the dependence on fossil fuels to the conflict in Ukraine, suggesting that a transition to renewable energy is necessary for both climate stability and global peace.

The document argues that TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan is incomplete and incompatible with a 1.5°C pathway, citing a lack of short-term absolute Scope 3 targets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. It recommends that investors vote against the management-sponsored 'Say on Climate' resolution and oppose the reappointment of specific Directors to signal disapproval of the company's fossil fuel strategy. The briefing also highlights legal and reputational risks associated with the EACOP project in East Africa, greenwashing lawsuits, and the company's continued assets in Russia.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's climate strategy is insufficient, citing a lack of short-term targets, a reliance on fossil gas, and a coal exit strategy based on asset sales rather than closures. The briefing recommends that investors vote against the 'Say on Climate' resolution and challenge the company on its gas and coal strategies.

Reclaim Finance assesses TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan as insufficient, noting that the company's emissions are projected to decrease by only 5.8% to 6.7% between 2015 and 2030. The analysis highlights a 'fossil-first' investment strategy where over 70% of CAPEX remains dedicated to oil and gas, and criticizes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) as fundamentally incompatible with climate goals. The document urges shareholders to vote against the management-sponsored climate resolution at the 2022 AGM.

The authors argue that any climate compatibility checkpoint for UK oil and gas licensing must be based on a rapid wind-down of production consistent with 1.5°C pathways. They highlight that while different IPCC scenarios vary in their assumptions regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and methane reductions, all require production to peak by 2020 for oil and 2025 for gas. The authors suggest that as a high-income country with low revenue dependence on fossil fuels, the UK should adopt a precautionary approach and potentially decrease production faster than the global average to ensure an equitable transition. They further refute the claim that reducing UK production would not impact global emissions, citing empirical evidence that supply reductions increase prices and lower global consumption.

Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's strategy of increasing passive management, specifically through the acquisition of Lyxor, creates a loophole where billions of euros in assets remain uncovered by coal exclusion policies. The document further contends that Amundi's engagement with companies like Glencore and its policies on unconventional fossil fuels effectively support continued fossil fuel expansion rather than a genuine 1.5°C-aligned transition.

The document assesses the role of 'Say on Climate' resolutions in corporate governance, highlighting their utility for financial actors needing climate data to meet reporting requirements and net-zero commitments. While these non-prescriptive votes can rally more shareholders and avoid legal conflicts with board competencies, the author warns of significant greenwashing risks, citing TotalEnergies' 2021 AG where a deficient plan received 92% approval. To ensure credibility, the text urges shareholders to demand annual votes based on exhaustive criteria that allow for the evaluation of alignment with a 1.5°C trajectory and to vote against incomplete or non-aligned plans.

In 2021, EU-27 electricity demand nearly returned to 2019 levels, with renewables reaching a record 1068 TWh and accounting for 37% of production. A critical shift occurred in the second half of 2021 when soaring gas prices made fossil gas more expensive than coal, leading new renewable output to predominantly replace gas rather than coal. While wind and solar output hit record highs (547 TWh), overall power sector emissions fell by an average of 2.5% per year since 2019, which is less than half the 6% annual decline required to align with a 1.5C pathway. Nuclear power continued a long-term structural decline, accounting for 26% of production in 2021.

The European Electricity Review 2022 identifies a 'paradigm shift' in the EU power sector where soaring gas prices in 2021 led new renewable energy to replace fossil gas instead of coal. While wind and solar reached record generation of 547 TWh in 2021, overall power sector emissions declined at less than half the rate required to meet 1.5°C targets. The report highlights that coal phase-outs are stalling in some regions, such as Poland, and that the structural decline of nuclear power is further slowing decarbonization by forcing renewables to replace lost nuclear capacity rather than fossil fuels.

The document analyzes the EU's trajectory toward a coal phase-out by 2030. While overall planned coal generation in the EU is expected to drop by 83% from 2015 to 2030, a small group of countries—Poland, Czechia, and Bulgaria—will remain the primary polluters, accounting for over 95% of the EU's planned coal electricity generation in 2030. The report highlights the disparity between these 'laggards' and the rest of the EU-27, noting that while most countries are aligning with 1.5C goals, Poland, Czechia, and Bulgaria have set phase-out dates far beyond 2030.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) for its energy sector benchmark, claiming it erroneously labels companies like TotalEnergies, Eni, and RWE as 1.5°C-aligned. The author argues the TPI methodology is flawed because it relies on company declarations rather than capital expenditure plans, ignores scope 3 emission targets, and overlooks the necessity of immediate short-term emission cuts, focusing instead on long-term targets for 2050.

The report finds that the vast majority of analyzed coal companies have failed to implement credible phase-out plans, with only 6% meeting basic criteria. Many companies continue to expand coal capacity, set exit dates beyond 2040, or use 'greenwashing' tactics such as selling assets to other owners or converting coal plants to gas and biomass. The authors argue that current 'soft' engagement by financial institutions is ineffective due to a lack of strong sanctions, and they call for robust coal exit policies that condition financial services on Paris-aligned plans.

The We Mean Business Coalition welcomes the Glasgow Climate Pact as a vital framework for keeping global warming to 1.5°C, noting that it provides the certitude needed for business to scale up climate solutions. The coalition emphasizes the need to fast-track the implementation of national plans and pledges, specifically calling for the phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030 for advanced economies and 2040 for others, and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The statement highlights the importance of the Net-Zero Standard from the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) for global reporting, and the agreement on Article 6 rules for carbon markets to drive deep decarbonization.

The We Mean Business Coalition calls on COP26 participants to align policies and finance with a 1.5°C trajectory, strengthen Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to halve global emissions by 2030, and finalize robust rules for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to prevent double counting of emissions reductions.

The EU is rapidly phasing out coal, with planned electricity generation from coal expected to fall by 83% between 2015 and 2030. However, Poland, Czechia, and Bulgaria are transitioning much more slowly, and are projected to be responsible for over 95% of the EU's planned coal-generated electricity in 2030.

The report critiques the GFANZ network, noting that while it represents over a third of the world's investable capital, its guidelines are riddled with loopholes. Key failures include the lack of mandatory absolute emission targets, the omission of fossil fuel restrictions in the Race to Zero criteria, and a reliance on 'analysis paralysis' through complex financed emissions accounting. The author recommends that alliances mandate the cessation of financial services for new fossil fuel supply and require clients to adopt robust phase-out plans for coal, oil, and gas.

The report analyzes the link between income inequality and carbon emissions, projecting that by 2030, the richest 10% of the global population will still be responsible for nearly half of all consumption emissions (48%), while the bottom 50% will account for only 10%. It highlights that the net effect of current NDCs results in 2030 global emissions remaining roughly equal to 2015 levels (35.5 GtCO2), which is nearly double the 18 GtCO2 median estimate required to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Reclaim Finance argues that Natixis's pledge to reduce oil and gas financing by 15% by 2024 is inadequate because it does not prohibit new loans to expanding companies and excludes equity and bond issuance support.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance and Urgewald, wrote to the CEOs of ten insurance companies (including Allianz, AXA, and Munich Re) demanding they stop insuring the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal in northern Germany. The authors argue that the project, promoted by Gasunie, will lock in greenhouse gas emissions for 30–50 years, contradicting the 1.5°C goal and risking the creation of a stranded asset. They highlight that the project costs €450 million, with up to €100 million from German taxpayers, and faces significant opposition from environmental groups and market analysts.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.