Search Climate Insights Directory

One year after COP26, GFANZ has expanded to over 150 trillion USD in assets but faces criticism for uneven progress across its sectoral alliances and a weakened link to the Race to Zero campaign. The author contends that the alliance's reliance on voluntary carbon markets and vague targets—such as those from Vanguard and BMO Global Asset Manager—undermines its goals, urging leadership to 'name and shame' members who fail to align their portfolios with net zero emissions.

The 2022 Green Central Banking Scorecard evaluates G20 monetary and prudential authorities, finding that most remain insufficiently ambitious in mitigating climate risks. While research and advocacy have improved, the report argues that central banks prioritize analysis over action and are hindered by a commitment to 'market neutrality' and flawed taxonomies. The Banque de France is the top-ranked institution, while Saudi Arabia is the lowest. The report recommends implementing green lending schemes, increasing capital requirements for fossil fuel exposures, and adopting a 'double materiality' framework to account for the financial sector's impact on the environment.

In 2019/2020, Nigeria received an average of USD 1.9 billion annually in climate finance, representing only 11% of the USD 17.7 billion needed annually for its conditional NDC. Public finance dominated at 77% of total flows, primarily delivered as concessional debt. Mitigation finance (USD 1.1 billion) outweighed adaptation finance (USD 663 million), despite high vulnerability to climate shocks. Energy systems received the most investment, particularly solar, while sectors like waste and industrial processes remained severely underfunded. The report highlights a significant contradiction between climate finance flows and continued heavy investment in fossil fuels, noting one LNG project alone received USD 2.77 billion. Key barriers include limited private sector mobilization, capacity constraints in GHG reporting, and a lack of national climate budget tagging.

The document opposes the promotion of natural gas as a 'transition fuel' in Africa, arguing that such projects primarily benefit European energy security and corporate profits while exacerbating climate vulnerability and poverty on the continent. It highlights the environmental damage in the Niger Delta and Cabo Delgado, criticizes 'Net Zero' as greenwashing, and proposes a 100% renewable energy target for Africa by 2050. The authors call for an end to fossil fuel financing and demand an annual climate debt payment of $2 trillion from industrialized nations to fund loss, damage, and a just transition.

In 2019/2020, Nigeria received an average of USD 1.9 billion annually in climate finance, representing only 11% of the USD 17.7 billion needed to meet its conditional NDC target. Public finance dominated the landscape, accounting for 77% of flows, primarily through concessional debt. Mitigation finance (USD 1.1 billion) outweighed adaptation finance (USD 663 million), despite the country's high vulnerability to climate risks. Energy systems received the largest share of investment (41%), with a strong focus on solar technologies, while sectors like waste and industrial processes remained severely underfunded. The report highlights a significant contradiction between climate finance goals and continued heavy investment in fossil fuels, noting that a single LNG project received USD 2.77 billion—more than the total tracked climate finance for the period.

The study finds limited alignment with the Paris Agreement, as financing to high-emitting 'brown' sectors generally increased in volume since 2016, while 'green' investments remained marginal in absolute terms.

ClientEarth asserts that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) obstructs climate policy by allowing fossil fuel companies to sue governments for compensation over environmental regulations. The organization argues that recent 'modernisation' efforts are insufficient, as they maintain a 'flexibility mechanism' that would allow litigation until the late 2030s and include protections for biomass and carbon capture. The document calls for a coordinated withdrawal of the EU, its member states, and the UK to eliminate the 'chilling effect' of the treaty on the European Green Deal and other climate commitments.

ClientEarth argues that the HM Treasury's review of Solvency II fails to address climate risks and proposes several regulatory changes. Key recommendations include making investments in new fossil fuel exploration and development ineligible for the matching adjustment and requiring a 100% capital charge for such exposures to prevent stranded asset risks. The document also calls for mandatory, embedded transition plans for insurers, the adoption of 'double materiality' to manage the sector's impact on the environment, and formal Pillar 2 requirements for long-term climate scenario analysis. Additionally, it urges the government to impose express environmental duties and transparency requirements on the Society of Lloyd's to manage the climate impact of the Lloyd's market.

The We Mean Business Coalition urges G7 leaders to implement policies that scale up renewable energy and phase out fossil fuels. Citing a report by Cambridge Econometrics, the author asserts that such a transition could save G7 households an average of $500 per person annually by 2030 and create millions of global jobs. The statement warns that investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure creates stranded assets and jeopardizes the 1.5C warming limit, calling instead for faster permitting of renewables and workforce reskilling.

The document argues that SMBC's involvement in the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments, exposing the bank and its directors to litigation, reputational damage, and stranded asset risks. It details specific human rights abuses and environmental threats associated with the pipeline and demands a full withdrawal from the project.

The document argues that SMBC's role as a financial advisor and lead arranger for the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments. It highlights risks including human rights abuses, biodiversity loss, and the potential for the pipeline to become a stranded asset in a net-zero transition. The authors warn that continuing this support could lead to greenwashing accusations, legal liability for directors under Japanese law, and severe reputational damage, especially as other global financial institutions withdraw their support.

The report finds that implementing Africa's NDCs will cost approximately USD 2.8 trillion between 2020 and 2030, with a 'climate finance need' of USD 2.5 trillion after accounting for USD 264 billion in domestic public commitments. Current annual flows of USD 30 billion cover only about 12% of the required USD 250 billion per year. Mitigation accounts for 66% of needs, dominated by the transport sector (largely due to South Africa), while adaptation represents 24%, likely underestimated due to data gaps. The report highlights a heavy reliance on public finance (87%) and recommends that the UNFCCC provide standardized guidance and capacity support to improve the robustness of national needs assessments.

The report finds that implementing Africa's NDCs will cost approximately USD 2.8 trillion between 2020 and 2030, with a 'climate finance need' of USD 2.5 trillion after accounting for domestic public commitments. Current annual flows of USD 30 billion cover only about 12% of the required USD 250 billion per year. Mitigation accounts for 66% of needs, heavily skewed toward South Africa's transport sector, while adaptation represents 24%, likely underestimated due to data gaps. The report highlights a significant reliance on public funding (87%) and recommends that the UNFCCC develop standardized guidance and that countries adopt more participatory, bottom-up needs assessments to mobilize private capital.

The briefing reports that 2030 climate target updates have stalled since COP26, leaving the world on track for 2.4°C of warming based on current targets and 2.7°C based on current policies. Despite the Glasgow Climate Pact's request for governments to strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by the end of 2022, no major emitter has updated its target. The report highlights a significant emissions gap, noting that global emissions in 2030 would be twice as high as the 1.5°C limit allows without increased action. It suggests four pathways for governments to update targets: full NDC updates, expanding NDC coverage (specifically for China regarding non-CO2 gases), participating in new sectoral initiatives, or implementing policies to overachieve existing targets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Crédit Agricole for continuing to support oil and gas expansion despite its claim to be a "green bank" and its commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050. The organization highlights that the bank provided $33 billion to the 100 largest fossil fuel developers since the Paris Agreement and remains the primary financial supporter of TotalEnergies, including a recent $8 billion revolving loan. Reclaim Finance calls on the bank to use its general assembly and upcoming strategic plan to end support for new fossil fuel projects and to vote against incompatible climate plans of oil majors through its subsidiary Amundi.

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 argues that Société Générale's 2022 policy is inadequate and allows the bank to continue funding major fossil fuel developers, noting that the bank provided $34 billion to the top 100 fossil fuel developing companies.

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.

Reclaim Finance has submitted a series of critical questions to BNP Paribas ahead of its May 2022 General Meeting. The document argues that the bank's current sectoral policies are insufficient to meet a 1.5°C warming trajectory, citing continued support for major oil and gas developers like Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies. It specifically highlights the bank's indirect support for the EACOP project in Uganda and Tanzania, its failure to exclude parent companies of coal miners like Glencore and RWE, and its financial ties to companies linked to tropical deforestation. The organization calls for a total stop to new fossil fuel infrastructure financing and more stringent exclusion criteria for non-conventional hydrocarbons and coal.

Reclaim Finance has issued a series of formal questions to Société Générale regarding the bank's alignment with a 1.5°C warming trajectory. The document argues that Société Générale continues to provide significant financial services to major oil and gas developers, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, TotalEnergies, and BP, and fails to effectively exclude non-conventional hydrocarbons and coal-producing parent companies from its portfolios.