Search Climate Insights Directory

In 2020, a significant increase in coal plant development in China offset a global retreat from coal, leading to the first increase in global coal capacity since 2015. While China commissioned 38.4 GW of new capacity, the rest of the world saw a decline of 17.2 GW, driven by record retirements in the U.S. and EU27. South and Southeast Asian nations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Vietnam, announced plans to cut up to 62 GW of planned coal power due to falling renewable costs and financing difficulties. Despite these regional shifts, the report finds that global coal capacity remains far above the levels required to meet the IPCC 1.5 degree pathway, with an estimated 1,350 GW needing to be cancelled or retired.

In 2020, global coal-fired power capacity increased by 12.5 GW, driven primarily by China, which operated 38.4 GW of new capacity. This offset record closures in the US (11.3 GW) and EU27 (10.1 GW). While China's development grew as an economic stimulus during the pandemic, other Asian nations like Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines announced plans to cancel up to 62 GW of planned projects due to falling renewable costs and financing difficulties. The report concludes that current global trajectories remain far from the 1.5°C warming limit, with approximately 1,350 GW of capacity needing to be cancelled or closed to meet IPCC targets.

In 2020, global coal capacity increased by 12.5 GW, driven by China's addition of 38.4 GW, which offset 37.8 GW of closures globally, primarily in the US and EU. While China saw a surge in new plans and construction as economic stimulus, other regions—particularly South and Southeast Asia—experienced significant project cancellations due to funding difficulties and the rise of renewables. The report highlights a widening gap between current global trajectories and the IPCC 1.5°C pathway, noting that substantial further closures are required to meet climate goals.

The report highlights a global divergence in coal power: while most of the world saw record closures and project cancellations, China experienced a significant boom in new capacity, offsetting global declines. In 2020, China's new coal capacity reached 38.4 GW, accounting for 76% of the global total. Conversely, the US and EU27 led in closures, with 11.3 GW and 10.1 GW retired respectively. In South and Southeast Asia, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Bangladesh announced plans to cut up to 62 GW of planned coal capacity due to funding difficulties and the falling cost of renewables. The report also notes that global coal capacity is far exceeding the levels required to meet the IPCC's 1.5°C warming limit, with a projected 2,400 GW by 2030 compared to the required 1,100 GW.

The report finds a significant gap between the long-term net-zero commitments of major asset managers and their actual investment practices, particularly regarding coal. Most analyzed managers lack robust coal exclusion policies, and 'passive' index investments—which represent nearly half of the assets under management in the sample—are largely exempt from climate criteria, leaving them highly exposed to the coal sector.

The report outlines a strategic framework for zero-carbon investing in China, identifying seven priority technology areas—resource recycling, energy efficiency, demand-side electrification, zero-carbon power generation, energy storage, hydrogen, and digitalization—with a projected market size of nearly ¥15 trillion (US$2.32 trillion) by 2050 and total infrastructure investment of approximately ¥70 trillion (US$10.8 trillion) between 2020 and 2050.

Reclaim Finance critiques Total SE's climate claims, asserting that the company's scope 3 emission targets are vague and insufficient. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions for 2030 will significantly exceed 1.5°C alignment levels and that its carbon intensity reductions are far below the 90% decrease recommended by Carbone 4 to limit warming to 2°C.

Reclaim Finance challenges Total SE's claims regarding its carbon neutrality ambitions and Scope 3 emission targets. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions will overshoot the 1.5°C trajectory by 200MT by 2030 and that its reported reductions in Europe are misleading. Reclaim Finance further criticizes Total's carbon intensity calculations for excluding non-fuel products and intermediate stages, concluding that the company's strategy is inadequate for limiting global temperature rise.

The World Resources Institute notes that China's 14th Five-Year Plan confirms pledges to peak CO2 emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060, while setting specific 2025 targets for carbon intensity and non-fossil energy consumption. However, the statement argues that the plan lacks critical details on how these goals will be achieved and suggests that additional actions beyond the plan are necessary to reach net zero by 2060.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1.0 billion "Sustainability Linked" credit facility from five major banks, asserting that the company's ESG goals are insufficient and serve to mask the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. The author contends that Enbridge's net-zero and GHG intensity targets only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, representing less than 2% of the lifecycle emission intensity of oil sands. Furthermore, the document highlights that the Line 3 pipeline project in Minnesota, supported by such funding, increases GHG emissions and violates the treaty rights of the Anishinaabeg.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.

The briefing examines the initial net-zero announcements from Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. While these institutions have committed to 2050 targets, the document notes that they are in early stages, lacking specific interim targets, defined pathways, and clear coverage standards for business units like capital markets. It highlights varying organizational responses, ranging from Wells Fargo's centralized Institute for Sustainable Finance to Goldman Sachs' hybrid model, and notes the adoption of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) by several banks to improve emissions reporting consistency.

The authors advocate for a diversified strategy to reach Canada's 2050 carbon neutrality goal, distinguishing between "safe bets" (commercialized technologies) and "risky bets" (emerging technologies). They argue that while safe bets can provide two-thirds of the emissions reductions needed by 2030, risky bets are necessary for cost-effective long-term elimination of emissions. The document calls for a combination of clear incentives for deployment and regulatory support for pilot projects, emphasizing public-private partnerships.

The report analyzes the green finance landscape in Central America and the Caribbean (CAC), noting that while the market is small—with only six green bond issuances as of June 2020—there is significant potential for growth in renewable energy, low-carbon transport, sustainable water, and waste management. It highlights the role of the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) and the leadership of Costa Rica in climate ambition. The document provides a step-by-step guide for green financing and explores emerging opportunities in sustainable agriculture and the blue economy, while discussing the economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the 2020 hurricane season.

The report argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be treated as a public service, similar to sewage treatment, because most CDR technologies do not generate independent revenue. It identifies a massive implementation gap between projected removal volumes and current policies, noting that while nature-based solutions are cheaper, they lack the permanence of technological options like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The authors recommend a mix of public subsidies for research, design, development and demonstration (RDD&D), carbon pricing, and the use of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to create a credible investment environment. It also highlights the role of voluntary private sector commitments, though it warns of a 'wild west' situation in the voluntary carbon market due to inconsistent monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards.

The report highlights that the water and sanitation sector contributes up to 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is highly vulnerable to climate impacts. It advocates for a shift from single-issue, siloed approaches toward integrated, local, and cross-sectoral collaborations to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 6 and 13. Through case studies in Peru, Uganda, Germany, and Bolivia, the document demonstrates how regulatory frameworks, peer-to-peer partnerships (WOPs), and systems-thinking can reduce carbon footprints and build resilience. It concludes that while collaboration is essential, it must be implemented proportionately to avoid operational inefficiency.

The report finds a nascent process of alignment in Colombia, where progress in green bond issuance and renewable energy auctions is offset by significant continued investment in fossil fuels and high deforestation rates. While the government has established frameworks like the Climate Change Law (2018) and a Carbon Tax, public spending remains heavily skewed toward the energy and mining sectors. Private financial flows are largely inconsistent with climate goals, with carbon-related assets dominating the listed equity market and insurance portfolios. The authors recommend a just transition that redirects fossil fuel subsidies toward renewables and enhances the use of green taxonomies to improve transparency.

Reclaim Finance argues that Engie's plan to exit coal is a 'non-annonce' because it prioritizes selling assets or converting them to gas and biomass instead of ensuring full closures. The organization warns that converting to gas or biomass fails to align with climate science and risks creating stranded assets. Furthermore, the document claims that selling plants does not reduce global CO2e emissions and that Engie's current 2°C target is insufficient to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

Reclaim Finance argues that Engie's coal exit plan is insufficient because it allows for the conversion of plants to gas or biomass and the sale of assets to other companies, which does not guarantee actual emission reductions or protect workers.

The document emphasizes that because CO2 is cumulative, delays in emission cuts lead to higher peak temperatures and greater ecological damage. It warns that overshooting the 1.5°C target and relying on underdeveloped negative emissions technologies (NETs) poses significant risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity. The author advocates for transparent, comprehensive greenhouse gas mitigation plans and a 'green recovery' from COVID-19, noting that the economic and public health benefits of rapid decarbonization far outweigh the costs.