Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides an overview of COP27, the 27th United Nations conference on climate change, which brings together approximately 200 countries to discuss plans for reducing carbon emissions to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. It identifies three overarching themes for the conference: emissions reductions, climate finance, and prioritising people through the lens of 'loss and damage'.

The report finds that new oil and gas developments in the North Sea could produce up to 984 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, potentially causing the UK to exceed its 2023-2037 carbon budget by a factor of two. It argues that the development of the 21 largest undeveloped fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C and that the government's Climate Compatibility Checkpoint system fails to account for all climate risks. Additionally, the report states that these developments would not lower energy prices for UK consumers.

The report argues that global oil and gas production must drop by at least 65% by 2050 to align with 1.5°C scenarios, warning that new oil and gas fields would either prevent this goal or create stranded assets. It finds that planned investments for new fossil fuels through 2030 could instead fully fund the necessary wind and solar expansion. Additionally, the report concludes that Europe possesses sufficient gas import capacities to meet its 1.5°C-compatible demand from 2024 onwards without relying on Russian supply.

The report argues that the UK's strategy to expand North Sea oil and gas production is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and the UK's own net-zero targets. It highlights that the 'Climate Compatibility Checkpoint' used by the government is insufficient and fails to account for the 'production gap' or emissions from burning fuels. The document details several major fields, such as Rosebank and Clair South, whose projected lifetime emissions would significantly exceed the UK's carbon budgets. It further debunks claims that domestic production lowers consumer bills or meaningfully reduces import dependency, noting that the majority of gas imports come from Norway.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the Climate Change Bill requires stronger enforcement mechanisms, more ambitious emissions targets, and greater transparency to effectively address the climate crisis in South Africa. The CER emphasizes that climate change is a human rights and gender justice issue, noting that women and girls face disproportionate risks. Key recommendations include the introduction of criminal and administrative penalties for exceeding carbon budgets, the adoption of a 'near zero' emissions target by 2050, and the creation of a public web-based information portal for climate data. The CER also calls for more inclusive public participation, particularly for remote communities, youth, and women, and suggests establishing an inter-departmental body to coordinate the climate response across government.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa (FFSA), has requested information from Investec Group concerning a US$ 140 million loan provided by a syndicate of four banks to Karpowership. The letter highlights that Karpowership SA's proposed floating gas-to-power projects in Coega, Richards Bay, and Saldanha face significant opposition due to environmental impacts and the risk of prolonging fossil fuel reliance. FFSA argues that the projects would emit substantial methane, potentially totaling 80 to 142 million tonnes CO2e over 20 years, and may become stranded assets. The request asks Investec to clarify if the loan finances South African operations and how this aligns with its membership in the Net Zero Banking Alliance and its own net-zero carbon emission claims.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa (FFSA), is questioning the Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB) about a US$ 140 million loan provided to Karpowership. The letter highlights environmental and legal concerns regarding Karpowership SA's projects in Coega, Richards Bay, and Saldanha, including the refusal of environmental authorisations by the DFFE and the potential for high methane emissions. FFSA seeks to clarify if MCB's financing ultimately supports these South African operations and how the bank assesses the associated material and climate risks.

Earthjustice and several partner organizations request that the BLM defer approval of oil and gas drilling permits in Kern County, California. They argue the BLM has violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws by failing to provide public comment periods on Environmental Assessments (EAs). The statement highlights severe public health risks to environmental justice communities in Kern County, including high rates of asthma and cancer, and argues that the BLM's air emissions estimates are unrealistically low and violate the Clean Air Act. It further demands a 'hard look' at water scarcity, groundwater contamination from unlined waste pits, and the climate impacts of carbon-intensive California crude. Finally, it asserts that new drilling threatens the critically imperiled Temblor legless lizard.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that South Africa's current approach to a just transition is dominated by market-based solutions and 'techno-fixes' that preserve a problematic economic structure. The report identifies the Minerals-Energy Complex (MEC) and neoliberal macroeconomic frameworks as primary drivers of both climate emissions and social inequality. To counter this, the IEJ proposes a 'caring rights-based economy' centered on human and planetary well-being, advocating for public ownership of energy, a job guarantee, and restorative justice to address historical losses. The document outlines specific measures across social, industrial, labour, land, and macroeconomic policies to ensure the transition does not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, particularly for Black women and coal-sector workers.

A coalition of civil society organisations condemns the UNDP's signing of an MoU with the Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) in South Africa. The letter argues that the MMSEZ is a coal-dependent project that would generate approximately 1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime, jeopardising South Africa's Paris Agreement commitments and exacerbating water insecurity in the Limpopo region. The authors further claim that the UNDP's grievance mechanisms, specifically the Stakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM) and the Social and Environmental Compliance Unit (SECU), are inadequate because they are reactive and do not cover non-binding MoUs that lend legitimacy to flawed projects.

The statement calls for the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero (GFANZ) to end its support for fossil fuel expansion, citing scientific evidence from the IPCC and IEA that new coal, oil, and gas projects are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It criticizes GFANZ leaders and CEOs from member institutions, such as Citigroup and Standard Chartered, for downplaying the urgency of a transition and for continuing to enable the development of 'carbon bombs'—large-scale projects that threaten the global carbon budget.

Reclaim Finance criticizes TotalEnergies' climate plan as incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, noting that the company remains a leading developer of hydrocarbons. The statement highlights a growing opposition from investors, including Crédit Mutuel, and urges shareholders to reject the plan and oppose the reelection of directors to hold the company accountable for its continued fossil fuel expansion.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, has requested urgent information from the South African government to inform public comments on the Climate Change Bill B9-2022. The request focuses on the proposed removal of Schedule 3 (the emissions trajectory), the status of the National Adaptation Strategy and Plan, the timelines for future regulations, and access to an updated socio-economic impact assessment.

The paper argues that current socio-economic systems, based on extractive resource use and shaped by a dominant economic class, drive both climate change and global inequality. It highlights that a small, wealthy minority has consumed the majority of the global carbon budget, which threatens the 1.5°C target and limits the ability of poorer populations to improve their living standards. The authors conclude that setting limits on resource use requires inclusive governance to prevent solutions from further entrenching power imbalances.

Reclaim Finance criticizes BNP Paribas for being the top European supporter of the 100 largest fossil fuel developers, providing $55.6 billion since the Paris Agreement. The organization argues that the bank's current policies still allow for the financing of new oil and gas fields incompatible with a 1.5°C scenario and calls for the bank to vote against the flawed climate plans of major energy companies like TotalEnergies and Shell.

Reclaim Finance identifies BNP Paribas as a leading European supporter of fossil fuel expansion and calls for the bank to cease funding new oil and gas fields and infrastructures to align with a 1.5°C scenario.

The report analyzes BP's decarbonization targets and investment strategies, claiming they are insufficient to meet 1.5°C goals. It highlights that BP's scope 3 emission targets cover only a fraction of total emissions and that the company continues to invest in new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sources. The author recommends that shareholders vote against BP's advisory 'Say on Climate' vote, support a shareholder resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of the Board of Directors.

Reclaim Finance argues that Shell's climate plan is insufficient to meet a 1.5°C trajectory, predicting the company will exceed its carbon budget by 40.9% by 2050 and consume 80.2% of it by 2030.

Reclaim Finance argues that BP's 'Net Zero ambition' plan is insufficient, as the company is projected to exceed its carbon budget by 50.9% by 2050 and consume 83.9% of that budget by 2030. The organization calls for shareholders to vote against the plan and the directors responsible for the company's continued focus on oil and gas expansion.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Shell's climate strategy is fundamentally flawed, predicting the company will overshoot its 1.5°C carbon budget by 40.9% by 2050 and exhaust it entirely by 2034. The organization criticizes Shell's reliance on carbon intensity metrics, nature-based offsets, and continued expansion into new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sectors like the Arctic and fracking. Consequently, it recommends that shareholders vote against the company's climate resolution, support a shareholder-led resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of 10 Board Directors.