Search Climate Insights Directory

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 document outlines the business case and technical process for seafood companies to adopt Science-Based Targets (SBTs) to mitigate climate change. It highlights that while seafood generally has a lower carbon footprint than land-based proteins, the industry faces significant risks from ocean warming and acidification. The guide details a process of data collection, GHG accounting using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), and target setting through the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Key reduction strategies include the electrification of fishing vessels, the development of low-carbon aquaculture feed, and the reduction of air freight. It emphasizes that Scope 3 emissions—particularly from feed and transport—represent the largest challenge and require pre-competitive collaboration across the value chain.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 finds that most of the 25 major global companies assessed have net-zero pledges that lack integrity, with aggregate emissions targeted for reduction by only 40% at most. While 15 companies report interim targets for 2030, the average reduction commitment for full value chain emissions is only 23%. Scope 3 emissions average 87% of total emissions, yet only 8 companies provide moderate detail on addressing them. The report notes a heavy reliance on unbundled renewable energy certificates (RECs) and contentious offsetting plans, particularly nature-based solutions, while suggesting that 'climate contributions' without neutrality claims are an emerging alternative.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Bank of England's (BoE) strategy to decarbonize its corporate sector purchases scheme (CBPS) is insufficient. While the BoE has implemented a Paris-aligned phase-out of coal, the organization claims the framework contains loopholes for oil and gas developers, relies on a slow 'escalation ladder' for divestment, and excludes scope 3 emissions from its targets and scorecard. The document also references quantitative research suggesting the BoE's 'market neutrality' approach may prevent a substantive reduction in the portfolio's carbon intensity.

The statement criticizes the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and its member alliances for a lack of urgency in meeting the '50x30' target of halving emissions by 2030. It highlights that most alliances lack near-term targets, allow the use of emission intensity metrics instead of absolute emissions, and fail to prohibit the financing of fossil fuel expansion.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 assesses 25 multinational companies, finding that most 'net zero' pledges are ambiguous and lack deep emission reduction commitments. The report highlights a systemic reliance on low-quality carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates (RECs) that often fail to provide additional climate benefits. While a few companies demonstrate leadership in renewable energy procurement and value chain engagement, the overall integrity of corporate climate strategies remains low, with many targets falling short of the 1.5C Paris Agreement goal.

RMI proposes a decentralized, open-source technical architecture to replace static, estimate-based carbon accounting with a blockchain-based system. The proposed system focuses on the exchange of primary emissions data at the product level, using 'digital twins' to track embodied carbon from source to sale. This approach aims to improve the veracity of Scope 3 emissions reporting and enable more informed procurement decisions to drive industrial decarbonization.

The Coalition on Materials Emissions Transparency (COMET) argues that current corporate GHG reporting, primarily based on the GHG Protocol, is insufficient for driving decarbonization because it relies on averages and corporate boundaries rather than actionable product-level data. To address this, COMET proposes shifting toward the use of primary data from direct suppliers, implementing fixed boundaries for comparability, and defining product boundaries that incentivize market-driven decarbonization. These principles aim to make Scope 3 emissions visible and traceable, facilitating a transition to zero-carbon production.

The paper finds major discrepancies between military GHG emissions data published by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It concludes that 'headline' figures understate scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36% to 71% and that lifecycle emissions and war-fighting impacts are entirely omitted from official statistics.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

The report examines how the mining industry must balance the surge in demand for critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies with the necessity of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate-driven risks like water scarcity and tailings dam failures.

Reclaim Finance challenges Crédit Agricole's commitment to net-zero goals, citing the bank's role as a top financier for companies like TotalEnergies and Saudi Aramco. The document questions the bank's failure to stop financing new oil and gas expansion, its inadequate exclusion policies for non-conventional fuels and Arctic projects, and its indirect support for the EACOP project. It also addresses the bank's ties to Russian fossil fuel activities, alleged infractions in its coal policy, and the voting behavior of its asset management subsidiary, Amundi, regarding the climate plans of oil majors.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Arla Foods to highlight a 'complete lack of action' from major meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. Based on a report titled 'Blindspot', the authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Arla specifically scored 14.8 out of 100 in the ranking, with the authors noting a lack of specific commitments and only 'minor investment' in technical methane abatement and protein alternatives. The letter recommends that Arla set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, and shift toward sustainable food systems including reduced meat and dairy production.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Groupe Bigard that it scored 0 out of 100 in a ranking of global meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane emission reporting and reduction targets. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including scope 3 emissions.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Cargill on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Cargill scored 15.2 out of 100 in the foundation's ranking and lacks specific methane reduction targets or separate reporting for methane emissions. The authors recommend that Cargill set science-based targets aligned with 1.5C, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations critique Danish Crown for its lack of concrete methane reduction targets and reporting, scoring the company 9.6 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including absolute emission reductions and a shift toward sustainable food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Danone to highlight the company's insufficient action on methane emissions, noting that Danone scored 30.2 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends that Danone set science-based targets for absolute methane reductions in line with a 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) that the company scored 12.8 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, indicating a lack of meaningful action to reduce methane emissions. The authors state that none of the 20 companies analysed in their 'Blindspot' report report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. The letter recommends that DFA set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane separately, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies that shift diets toward sustainable options.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations argue that major meat and dairy companies, specifically Fonterra, are failing to address methane emissions. They recommend the adoption of science-based targets, separate reporting for methane and CO2, and increased investment in alternative proteins to align with the 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to FrieslandCampina to highlight the company's lack of action on methane emissions, scoring it 8.8 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends setting absolute methane reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit.