Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance criticizes BNP Paribas for continuing to finance the expansion of oil and gas despite a pledge to reduce its exposure by 10% between 2020 and 2025. The organization argues that this target is inadequate given the climate emergency and is undermined by the bank's previous funding surges and the exclusion of equity and bond issuances from the commitment. Furthermore, the document highlights that BNP Paribas remains a top financier for majors like Shell, BP, Eni, and Total, contributing to the growth of high-risk sectors such as oil sands, shale gas, and Arctic drilling.

Reclaim Finance assesses JPMorgan Chase's (JPMC) 2030 portfolio targets, concluding that while the inclusion of underwriting and the setting of interim targets are positive, the oil and gas targets are unacceptably weak. The document highlights that JPMC provided $317 billion in fossil fuel finance between the Paris Agreement's adoption and the end of 2020. It argues that JPMC's reliance on emissions intensity metrics rather than absolute emissions reductions allows for continued support of fossil fuel expansion, citing JPMC's financing of Total and ExxonMobil as examples.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Société Générale for maintaining high levels of fossil fuel financing despite public pledges to exit coal and reduce oil and gas exposure. The document highlights the bank's continued support for Arctic extraction, shale gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as its use of semantic loopholes to fund coal-heavy entities like EPH.

The statement by Reclaim Finance criticizes Crédit Agricole for providing 64 billion dollars in financing to coal, oil, and gas between 2016 and 2020. It highlights that the bank remains one of the top 10 global financiers of companies active in the Arctic and has increased its support for unconventional oil and gas, including shale gas, despite public commitments to revise its policies.

The World Resources Institute critiques the World Bank Group's draft Climate Change Action Plan, asserting it falls short of the urgency required by the Paris Agreement. The briefing recommends that the World Bank Group implement a numeric emissions cap, phase out fossil fuel financing—specifically natural gas—and prioritize climate resilience through better project design and staffing. It further suggests improving climate finance reporting to measure actual impact rather than just financial inputs and providing more technical resources to low- and middle-income countries to help them develop projects that move beyond 'business-as-usual' development.

The statement by Reclaim Finance criticizes NatWest for a lack of clarity regarding its fossil fuel financing policies. Despite commitments to net-zero by 2050 and a coal phase-out by 2030, the bank remains among the top 50 most polluting banks globally, having provided over $13 billion in fossil fuel financing between 2016 and 2020. The author highlights specific gaps in NatWest's coal exit strategy, noting continued support for companies like Glencore and RWE, and demands clear 'red lines' for the 'credible transition plans' required of oil and gas producers by the end of 2021.

The author argues that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) is a 'glossy initiative' that prioritizes image over action. While the author welcomes the commitment to use low-overshoot decarbonisation scenarios and a conservative approach to negative emissions technologies, they highlight critical flaws: a three-year window until 2024 for banks to publish emissions reduction plans and the absence of explicit requirements to end coal financing or stop funding fossil fuel expansion. The text notes that 15 of the largest banks in the NZBA have provided US$ 1.2 trillion to fossil fuels since 2016, specifically citing Barclays and BNP Paribas. The author concludes that net-zero targets for 2050 are insufficient without immediate measures to phase out fossil fuel financing.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis, arguing instead that the bank is the largest European financier of the industry and the 4th largest globally. The organization contends that the bank's sectoral policies are ineffective against oil and gas majors and that its use of the PACTA methodology should not delay immediate action to halt sector expansion.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis or supported companies in transition. The organization highlights that BNP Paribas was the largest European and fourth largest global financier of fossil fuels in 2020, with $41 billion in funding, and argues that the bank's sector policies fail to restrict funding to oil and gas majors despite their lack of alignment with the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that the 60 largest global banks provided $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2020. Despite a 9% drop in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financing levels remained higher than in 2016. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the world's worst fossil fuel banker, with $317 billion provided over the five-year period. The analysis highlights a significant gap between banks' 'net zero by 2050' pledges and their continued funding of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in sectors like LNG, offshore oil and gas, and coal. The report also details the human rights and environmental impacts of specific projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and the Line 3 pipeline, and argues that current bank policies are insufficient to align with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.

The briefing examines how the IFC's Green Equity Approach (GEA) fails to prevent continued fossil fuel finance through financial intermediary clients. It highlights cases where GEA clients funded new coal plants and identifies significant IFC equity exposure to oil and gas projects globally. The authors call for a public review of the GEA and a total phase-out of fossil fuel finance in IFC's financial intermediary portfolio.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a proposed French decree on ESG reporting for financial investors, arguing it fails to align with the Paris Agreement, ignores fossil fuel financing, and lacks sanctions for non-compliance. The organization calls for mandatory transparency and penalties to force financial actors to abandon fossil fuel investments.

ClientEarth argues that HSBC faces significant financial, reputational, and legal risks by continuing to finance fossil fuels. The organization supports a shareholder resolution calling for a Paris-aligned strategy with short, medium, and long-term targets, specifically starting with coal. ClientEarth contends that HSBC's current net zero ambitions and transition financing pledges are insufficient without a concrete plan to reduce fossil fuel exposure, noting that the bank is Europe's second largest financier of fossil fuels.

The report finds that global investment for energy access is critically insufficient. Finance for electricity in high-impact countries (HICs) fell to USD 32 billion in 2019, while clean cooking commitments stagnated around USD 130 million, far below the USD 4.5 billion annual need. While grid-connected renewables became the top electricity sector in 2019, decentralized solutions remain severely underfunded. The report emphasizes the need for climate-resilient infrastructure, as seen in Mozambique, and explores divergent clean cooking pathways in Ghana (LPG) and Vietnam (biogas).

The document outlines eight key demands from Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France addressed to BNP Paribas. It calls for the bank to strictly apply its coal exit policy, cease all support for hydrocarbon development, exit high-risk sectors like the Arctic and unconventional oil and gas by 2030, and vote against Total's climate strategy. Additionally, it urges the bank to withdraw from gas projects in Mozambique, strengthen exclusions on soy-related deforestation in the Cerrado, and formalize a policy to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The document consists of formal inquiries directed at Natixis regarding its climate and environmental policies. The authors challenge the bank's delayed implementation of coal exclusions, its continued support for fossil fuel expansion, and its involvement in high-risk sectors such as Arctic drilling, shale gas, and Amazonian oil extraction. It specifically calls for the bank to oppose Total's climate strategy and cease financing for projects like EACOP and Tilenga, as well as gas developments in Mozambique. Additionally, it demands a 'zero deforestation' policy for imported soy and a detailed plan to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The report finds that energy finance in high-impact countries (HICs) is critically insufficient to meet SDG7 targets. In 2019, tracked electricity finance in HICs fell to USD 32 billion, with residential access funding at only one-third of the required annual investment. Clean cooking investment has stagnated around USD 130 million annually, far below the USD 4.5 billion needed. While there is a positive shift away from fossil fuel electricity generation and an increase in private finance for clean cooking, significant gaps remain, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. The report advocates for increased climate resilience in infrastructure, the scaling of decentralized energy solutions, and the integration of clean cooking into national climate policies and NDCs.

The report finds that global investment for energy access is critically insufficient. Finance for electricity in HICs fell to USD 32 billion in 2019, with residential access receiving only USD 12.9 billion—less than one-third of the estimated USD 41 billion annual need. Clean cooking investment has stagnated around USD 130 million annually, far below the USD 4.5 billion required. While renewables saw record highs and fossil fuel finance declined in some areas, significant gaps remain, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Case studies in Mozambique, Ghana, and Vietnam highlight the need for climate-resilient infrastructure and diversified technological approaches to clean cooking.

The statement argues that French financial actors are failing to translate their Paris Agreement commitments into concrete action. It highlights that since COP21, financial actors have provided $1,600 billion in funding to fossil fuel companies, with French banks and investors contributing $126 billion in financing and $22 billion in investments. The text specifically calls out the Banque de France for not having adopted a coal exit policy or restrictions on other fossil fuels, despite the governor's public calls for climate action. It also notes that ten other French actors, including Covéa and SCOR, have insufficient policies, and contrasts the French government's plan to fund fossil fuel projects until 2035 with the UK's goal to end such funding by COP26 in November 2021.

The document advocates for a shift in investor strategy from traditional shareholder engagement to the use of bond markets as a strategic lever for climate action. It highlights that corporate bonds represent approximately 41 trillion USD and provide a critical point of influence during capital rounds. The author specifically calls for investors to refuse bonds from companies developing new fossil fuel projects and identifies the Samcheok coal plant project in South Korea as a key test case for this approach.