Search Climate Insights Directory

A group of environmental and social organizations is urging Macquarie Infrastructure to transition its portfolio to net-zero energy, disclose emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario.

A group of environmental and social organizations is calling on Oaktree Capital to transition its portfolio to net-zero energy, implement a just transition for affected communities, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario.

A group of climate and social justice organizations has called on Riverstone Holdings to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter demands a transition to a net-zero energy portfolio, including the disclosure of Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and a commitment to invest the majority of new energy capital in renewables by 2025. Additionally, the signatories urge the firm to disclose all corporate and executive political spending to ensure alignment with a 1.5 degree scenario from the Paris Agreement and to implement a just transition program for impacted workers and communities.

A group of climate and social justice organizations has issued a formal demand to TPG Capital to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter calls for the firm to develop a net-zero energy portfolio, disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions for energy holdings, and ensure a just transition for impacted workers and communities. Additionally, the signatories urge TPG Capital to publish its political spending policies and ensure that lobbying activities by the firm and its portfolio companies align with a 1.5 degree scenario from the Paris Agreement.

A group of climate and social justice organizations has issued a formal demand to Warburg Pincus to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter calls for the firm to disclose emissions for current and future energy holdings, shift new energy capital to renewables by 2025-2030, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario. Additionally, the signatories demand a just transition program for workers and communities impacted by the firm's fossil fuel assets.

ClientEarth argues that HSBC faces significant financial, reputational, and legal risks by continuing to finance fossil fuels. The organization supports a shareholder resolution calling for a Paris-aligned strategy with short, medium, and long-term targets, specifically starting with coal. ClientEarth contends that HSBC's current net zero ambitions and transition financing pledges are insufficient without a concrete plan to reduce fossil fuel exposure, noting that the bank is Europe's second largest financier of fossil fuels.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that reaching net zero by 2050 is possible if Canada implements a policy strategy that combines low-risk "safe bets" with high-risk "wild cards." The report recommends using climate accountability frameworks to manage uncertainty and implementing supportive policies to ensure the transition does not exacerbate existing inequalities.

The report proposes a comprehensive policy pathway for the United States to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, aligning with IPCC 1.5 C targets. Central to this strategy is a Clean Electricity Standard (CES) requiring 100% clean electricity by 2035 and the total elimination of coal power by 2030. The pathway includes transitioning to 100% zero-emission vehicle sales for light-duty vehicles by 2035 and all-electric building equipment by 2030. The analysis indicates that this transition would increase U.S. GDP by $997 billion per year by 2050, create 5.5 million new job-years, and avoid over 65,000 premature deaths by 2050.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document analyzes Canada's 2020 COVID-19 recovery spending, noting a higher commitment to clean energy (CAD 14.7 billion) than fossil energy (CAD 3.6 billion) according to Energy Policy Tracker data. However, it highlights significant transparency gaps regarding credit support from public finance institutions like EDC and BDC. Compared to France, Germany, and the UK, Canada's per capita investment in electric vehicles is lower, while its investment in building retrofits is relatively high. The brief warns that Canada's hydrogen strategy leans toward 'blue hydrogen' (fossil-based) while European peers prioritize 'green hydrogen'. It recommends applying strict 'green strings' to stimulus, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, and aligning ambition with international standards.

The document argues that Export Development Canada (EDC) provides disproportionately high levels of support for oil and gas compared to clean technology, often lacking transparency in its transactions. It highlights that EDC's domestic mandate expansion, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has facilitated continued fossil fuel financing. The brief recommends that EDC phase out public finance for fossil fuels, set clear climate action targets, and implement 'green strings' (climate-related conditionalities) to ensure economic recovery is aligned with the Paris Agreement and Canada's 2050 net-zero goal.

The Canadian government provided at least CAD 1.91 billion in federal fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, representing a jump of over 200% from 2019 levels. This increase was primarily driven by COVID-19 recovery measures, specifically funding for orphan and abandoned well reclamation and support for Newfoundland's offshore oil industry. The report argues that these subsidies are inconsistent with Canada's net-zero emissions by 2050 target and G20 commitments to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It highlights significant data gaps regarding tax-related subsidies and public finance provided through Export Development Canada (EDC). The author recommends a transparent roadmap for subsidy phase-out by 2025, the alignment of EDC policies with climate goals, and the inclusion of subsidy reform in Canada's next Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement.

The document examines Canada's approach to the hydrogen economy, specifically the tension between supporting 'blue hydrogen' (fossil fuel-based with carbon capture) and 'green hydrogen' (renewable-based). It argues that blue hydrogen is less environmentally effective due to methane leaks and high costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and is likely to be out-competed by green hydrogen by 2030. The author contends that subsidies for blue hydrogen constitute fossil fuel subsidies that undermine Canada's climate goals and net-zero 2050 target, recommending strict environmental and cost criteria for any public funding.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The document analyzes the gap between Total SE's public climate ambitions and its actual business strategy, which continues to prioritize fossil fuel expansion. It highlights the role of French banks and investors in supporting this model and calls for a shift toward absolute emission reductions and the cessation of new fossil fuel projects.

The document argues that while climate and energy scenarios are essential for target setting, they often rely on legacy modeling that can constrain imagination and overlook non-linear transformations. It distinguishes between scenarios (future snapshots), pathways (adaptive courses), and roadmaps (deterministic methods), and advises decision-makers to use a combination of top-down models and bottom-up assessments to identify a broader 'opportunity space'. The author highlights critical gaps in current scenarios, including a lack of stakeholder diversity, neglect of equity and non-emissions benefits, and a failure to account for learning curves in technological innovation and demand-side efficiency.

The document examines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in corporate net-zero strategies, emphasizing that while NBS can provide critical finance for conservation and significant co-benefits for biodiversity, they must not substitute for direct fossil fuel abatement. It details 'demand-side' risks, such as the potential for offsets to dilute corporate ambition, and 'supply-side' risks, including leakage, permanence, and additionality. The authors advocate for a 'both/and' approach combining aggressive internal decarbonization with high-quality NBS credits, preferably shifting from project-based to jurisdictional-scale crediting to improve integrity.