Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance argues that Equinor's energy transition plan, submitted for a 'Say on Climate' vote on May 11, 2022, fails to align with the 1.5°C warming limit. The organization claims the company will exceed its carbon budget by 25.6% by 2050 and will have consumed 69.1% of its remaining carbon budget by 2030 due to a continued reliance on oil field production and development.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Repsol's climate targets are inadequate, noting the company will overshoot its carbon budget by 78.7% by 2050. The statement highlights that Repsol plans to maintain oil and gas production at approximately 650 kboe/day through 2025 and allocate over 65% of CAPEX to fossil fuels, including high-risk projects in the Arctic and fracking. Despite goals for 20 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, the author argues this does not offset the lack of absolute emission reductions. Consequently, the document recommends shareholders vote against the 'Say on Climate' advisory vote and the reappointment of four directors responsible for fossil expansion.

Reclaim Finance argues that Repsol's energy transition strategy is insufficient, projecting that the company will exceed its carbon budget by 78.7% by 2050 and consume 82% of it by 2030.

A coalition of NGOs argues that TotalEnergies' climate strategy is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal, citing insufficient decarbonization targets and continued fossil fuel expansion. They call on investors to vote against the company's climate strategy and the reappointment of specific directors at the May 2022 Annual General Meeting, and to suspend new financial services to the company.

A coalition of NGOs argues that TotalEnergies' climate strategy is incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, citing insufficient emission reductions and continued investment in fossil fuel expansion. The signatories call on investors to vote against the company's sustainable development resolution and the renewal of specific directors' mandates, while urging a halt to new financial support until the company stops developing new oil and gas projects.

The briefing asserts that the EU's current 55% emissions reduction target for 2030 is insufficient and that the proposed reforms to the EU ETS will fail to meet even their own targets. Based on research from Climact and the Öko Institute, the document advocates for a 65% overall reduction target by 2030 and an EU ETS target of at least 70%. To achieve this, it proposes a 'three-stage rocket' approach: a one-off reduction of 350 million allowances, increasing the Linear Reduction Factor to 4.4%, and revising Market Stability Reserve thresholds downward to zero by 2030.

The briefing concludes that BP is not on track for the 1.5°C goal, as its projected emissions will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2033. Despite pledges to reach Net Zero by 2050, the analysis finds that BP's short-to-medium term carbon intensity remains too high and its capital expenditure continues to favor fossil fuels over renewables.

The briefing concludes that ENI is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed its allocated carbon budget by at least 13.6% by 2050. The analysis finds that ENI's short-to-medium term plans are incompatible with 1.5°C because the company continues to invest in oil and gas expansion, with production expected to grow until 2025. Furthermore, the report argues that ENI relies unsustainably on carbon offsets and Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) to meet its targets, while its capital expenditure remains heavily focused on fossil fuels despite claims of diversification.

The briefing concludes that Shell's strategy is not on track to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, predicting the company will exceed its allocated carbon budget by 2034. Despite a net-zero ambition for 2050, the analysis finds that Shell's short-term plans rely on unrealistic offsets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. The report highlights that Shell remains a top global hydrocarbon developer, with approximately 90% of its 2022 CAPEX allocated to fossil fuels, which contradicts the deep emission cuts required for 1.5°C alignment.

The document argues that TotalEnergies is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed the compatible carbon budget by at least 31.8% by 2050. It finds that the company's strategy remains driven by oil and gas expansion, with production levels expected to increase by 18.4% by 2030 compared to 2020. The analysis highlights an unsustainable reliance on carbon offsets and a CAPEX allocation that continues to favor fossil fuels over renewables.

The paper examines how the unequal consumption of natural resources and the global carbon budget reinforces systemic inequality and accelerates climate change. It argues that current environmental frameworks, such as the planetary boundaries and the Paris Agreement, often fail to allocate responsibility equitably or address the colonial legacies of the global economic system. The authors call for a transformation of global governance to include marginalized voices and Indigenous knowledge systems, shifting away from a growth-dependent economic model toward one rooted in social justice and cultural reflexivity.

The document examines the failure of existing multilateral systems to address global-scale chronic risks, such as the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. It highlights the stark disparity in climate-related deaths and GDP losses between high-income and low-income groups, noting that the Global North bears significant historical responsibility for emissions while the Global South suffers the most severe consequences. The authors propose 'de minimis multilateralism'—focusing on common aversions—and the creation of a Global Resilience Reserve Fund and a Climate Risk Atlas for Developing Countries to enhance human security and financial resilience.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental and community organisations, has requested the urgent intervention of the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) regarding the environmental authorisation of the Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (MMSEZ) project. The CER argues that the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) is not the lawful competent authority due to a conflict of interest and that the project's scale and transboundary implications require national-level oversight under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

The report outlines critical research needs across natural sciences, social sciences, and legal analysis to support climate litigation. Key gaps include the need for localized attribution science, investigations into corporate disinformation and internal knowledge (including non-fossil fuel industries), and the quantification of economic damages. It also emphasizes the necessity of 'translational work' to bridge the communication gap between scientists, legal practitioners, and judges, particularly regarding legally relevant timeframes and standards of evidence.

The document rebuts the Fédération bancaire française's (FBF) assertions that French banks are prioritizing the climate transition. It argues that despite Net-Zero commitments, French banks provided over $350 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2021 and continue to fund companies expanding fossil fuel production, contrary to IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C pathway.

This document is a formal appeal submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) on behalf of four appellants—Earthlife Africa, groundWork, the Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa, and Dzomo La Mupo—to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET). The appeal seeks to set aside Environmental Authorisation (EA) No. 12/1/9/2-V79, granted on 23 February 2022 to the Musina-Makhado Special Economic Zone (SOC) Ltd (MMSEZ). The EA allows for the site clearance of 3,863 hectares of indigenous vegetation and the development of bulk infrastructure in the Vhembe District of Limpopo. The appellants argue that the EA is unlawful due to procedural irregularities, a lack of authority by the decision-maker, failure to assess cumulative and climate impacts, and the disregard of cultural heritage and water scarcity issues.

The research establishes differentiated timelines for ending fossil fuel production based on national wealth and economic reliance. Wealthy nations must end oil and gas production by 2034, including a 74% output cut by 2030, while the poorest nations are granted until 2050 to phase out production, requiring a 14% cut by 2030 and significant financial support for their economic transition.

The document asserts that the EU's current target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 is incompatible with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. It argues that the EU would require double its per capita share of the remaining global carbon budget under current policies. The author suggests the EU should instead target at least a 65% reduction by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2040. To achieve this, the briefing recommends reforming the EU ETS by rebasing emission levels to actual 2020 levels and increasing the annual linear reduction factor beyond the proposed 4.2%.

The report outlines a consensus among approximately 30 Canadian civil society organizations to prioritize absolute emissions reductions over carbon removals and offsets. Key recommendations include establishing a firm fossil fuel phase-out date, ending subsidies for nuclear and carbon capture technologies, and integrating Indigenous reconciliation and just transition principles into climate policy. The document highlights a tension between incremental government targets and the systemic change required to align with a 1.5°C warming limit.

The report details a series of virtual workshops held in 2021 involving approximately 30 civil society organizations to discuss Canada's net-zero goals. The findings highlight a strong consensus on the need for absolute emission reductions, the phase-out of fossil fuels, and the prioritization of 'safe bets' like clean electricity and energy efficiency over uncertain technologies. Key areas of concern include the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the use of carbon offsets, and the necessity of integrating climate justice and Indigenous reconciliation into national strategies. The document concludes with a set of proposed 'guardrails' and policy demands to guide Canada's transition to carbon neutrality.