Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance challenges BPCE's claims that it is reducing fossil fuel financing, asserting that the bank's methodology excludes critical activities like LNG terminals and bond issuance. The document argues that BPCE's renewable energy targets are insufficient to meet 1.5°C goals and that the bank inconsistently aggregates financial data to inflate its green credentials while minimizing its fossil fuel exposure.

The report finds that expanding the World Cup to 48 teams will significantly increase GHG emissions, with air transport emissions estimated to rise by 160% to 325% for the 2026, 2030, and 2034 tournaments. It estimates the 2026 World Cup in North America will produce at least 9.0 million tCO2e, while the FIFA-Aramco sponsorship deal could induce an additional 30 million tCO2e. Furthermore, a risk assessment of the 16 stadiums for the 2026 event reveals that half require immediate environmental intervention, with six facing extreme heat stress.

The report finds that global banks significantly increased fossil fuel financing in 2024, totaling $869 billion, with $429 billion specifically directed toward fossil fuel expansion. This trend persists despite climate pledges and the Paris Agreement goals. The analysis highlights a retreat from voluntary climate commitments, such as the collapse of the Net Zero Banking Alliance, and identifies major financiers including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup. It also documents the human rights and environmental harms caused by these investments in regions such as the Amazon, the Arctic, and Southeast Asia.

The document examines the role of faith, particularly Christianity, in driving climate action. It notes that while a vast majority of Christian leaders believe in human-caused climate change, few discuss it with their congregations. It also highlights the systemic influence of faith-based organizations through land ownership, financial investments, and initiatives like the Laudato Si’ Action Platform and the World Council of Churches' efforts to hold fossil fuel financiers accountable.

The report finds that none of the 20 largest European and UK banks have developed a robust climate transition plan, with an average score of 41/100. While banks have improved reporting and governance to meet regulatory requirements, they lack concrete decarbonization and engagement strategies, often continuing to finance fossil fuel development. The analysis highlights a significant gap between public net-zero commitments and actual business model shifts, warning that current disclosures are more 'ESG marketing material' than actionable transition plans.

Reclaim Finance critiques the Dutch bank ING for implementing a 'double standard' in its climate policy. While ING is the first major international bank to announce an end to direct project financing for new LNG export terminals starting in 2026, it continues to provide corporate financial services to the companies developing these projects. Between 2021 and 2023, ING provided over $5 billion to LNG expansion, ranking it as the second-largest European financier of the sector. The document highlights that corporate financing, which remains permitted under ING's new policy, accounts for 96% of financing allocated to the fossil fuel industry. Specific examples of continued support include $3 billion provided to Venture Global and the bank's role in the company's January 2025 IPO, as well as bond issuances for Cheniere Energy in early 2024.

The report finds that while many global banks have committed to net-zero by 2050, their disclosures lack standardisation and transparency. Key issues include inconsistent sectoral coverage, the omission of facilitated emissions, and a failure to align sectoral targets with 1.5°C benchmarks. The report highlights that a significant portion of bank balance sheets remains uncovered by net-zero targets and that current levels of sustainable finance are insufficient to meet the 10-to-1 clean energy to fossil fuel investment ratio recommended by the IEA.

The report argues that Norway's 'energy culture' is heavily skewed by the petroleum industry, creating a 'petroculture' that marginalizes climate-critical perspectives. It highlights the contrast between the Norwegian Directorate of Culture's focus on internal emission reductions and Arts Council England's systemic approach. The document details how the oil industry uses 'petroganda'—including STEM sponsorships for children and academic agreements—to maintain legitimacy and delay the energy transition. It also notes a trend of Norwegian cultural organizations taking stances against oil exploration and discusses the criminalization of climate activists in Norway.

The document examines the intersection of the climate crisis and the US insurance system, focusing on the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. It highlights a disconnect where insurers seek significant rate hikes—up to 99% in some coastal areas—despite historical profitability, while many homeowners remain uninsured for flood damage. The authors argue that the insurance industry exacerbates the climate crisis by investing over $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets and underwriting fossil fuel projects, thereby profiting from the drivers of the extreme weather that leads to higher insurance claims.

Reclaim Finance analyzed the decarbonization targets of 30 major banks, finding that most are overly complex and fail to link target achievement with actual corporate emission reductions. The report specifically criticizes the use of financed or facilitated emissions, which can be influenced by corporate value changes rather than emissions, and recommends shifting toward targets based on reduced finance for fossil fuel companies, physical intensity for industrial sectors, and absolute emissions without value-based attribution.

The document argues that fossil fuel sponsorship of political gatherings, specifically the UBCM Convention, constitutes greenwashing and improperly influences municipal decision-making. It links fossil fuel combustion to severe health crises, including 8.1 million annual global deaths from air pollution and extreme weather events in British Columbia such as the 2021 heat dome and historic wildfires. The authors call for a total ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship in BC municipalities, drawing parallels to the historical ban on tobacco industry influence in medicine.

The document defines traditional and synthetic securitization and analyzes how these mechanisms can be used by fossil fuel companies to diversify funding and manage balance sheets. It critiques current 'green' securitization definitions for being too broad and proposes a three-dimensional framework—focusing on use of proceeds, asset character, and company commitment—to prevent the mechanism from indirectly financing fossil fuel expansion. Reclaim Finance advocates for a regulatory framework that ensures transparency and restricts securitization to sustainable energy activities.

Reclaim Finance analyzes 243 sectoral targets from 30 global banks, concluding that most are ineffective due to flawed methodologies, partial coverage, and a lack of transparency. The report specifically criticizes the use of PCAF attribution factors, which can make emissions appear to drop even if real-world emissions remain flat. It recommends shifting toward targets based on financing volumes for fossil fuels, absolute sectoral portfolio emissions, and physical intensity for industrial sectors to drive genuine decarbonization.

The report finds that while international public finance for fossil fuels from CETP signatories has decreased significantly, there has not been a corresponding increase in clean energy finance. Many signatories lack quantitative targets or comprehensive policies to prioritize clean energy, and some high-income countries continue to violate the pledge by financing fossil fuel projects.

The report examines how the increasing frequency and severity of climate-driven disasters lead insurance companies to raise premiums or withdraw coverage, particularly in high-risk areas of the US. This process creates a 'domino effect' where the lack of affordable insurance makes homes unmortgageable, reduces property values, and increases homelessness. The authors highlight a cycle where insurers profit from these increases and reinvest in fossil fuels, further exacerbating the climate crisis. The document warns that widespread mortgage defaults and the devaluation of lender security could lead to a systemic financial crisis with global implications.

The US Treasury is criticized for not opposing World Bank Group financing of fossil fuel projects, including recent International Finance Corporation commitments to oil and gas in Nigeria and Mali, and a feasibility study for a Liquid Natural Gas terminal in Morocco.

Reclaim Finance expresses its support for the Nouveau Front populaire in the 2024 French legislative elections, citing the coalition's commitment to transforming finance to serve a just ecological transition. The organization contrasts this with the far-right, specifically the Rassemblement national, which it claims opposes climate progress and seeks to repeal the European Green Deal. A key policy priority highlighted is the prohibition of financing for new fossil fuel energy projects.

The report finds that Canadian institutions provided between CAD 7.6 billion and CAD 13.5 billion annually to the fossil fuel sector from 2020 to 2022, while providing only CAD 147 million annually for domestic renewable energy. It identifies Export Development Canada (EDC) as the primary provider of this finance and highlights a critical lack of transparency in reporting. The authors recommend a comprehensive policy that covers the entire fossil fuel life cycle, includes existing investments like the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, and precludes funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and blue hydrogen. The report suggests redirecting these funds toward clean electricity and Indigenous-led generation to support Canada's energy transition.

Reclaim Finance highlights the contradiction between the values promoted by French banks through sports sponsorships and their continued financial support for fossil fuel expansion. The report details the funding provided by BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, and BPCE to oil and gas companies and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects between 2021 and 2024, asserting that such investments are incompatible with the Paris Agreement and IPCC guidelines.

The BOCC authors clarify that Barclays was given multiple opportunities to review deal information and methodology prior to the 2024 report's publication. They explain that differences in reported financing increases stem from BOCC's use of a more rigorous approach for diversified companies, which uses activity-based data from annual reports and Bloomberg rather than simple industry classifications.