Search Climate Insights Directory

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 asserts that Equinor's climate plan is insufficient to meet 1.5°C targets, noting that the company will exceed its carbon budget by 2037. The statement criticizes Equinor for continuing to develop new fossil fuel resources, including unconventional and Arctic projects, and for relying on unproven CCUS scalability. It recommends that shareholders reject the company's transition plan and support resolutions calling for absolute GHG reduction targets and a cessation of exploration.

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.

Reclaim Finance assesses TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan as insufficient, noting that the company's emissions are projected to decrease by only 5.8% to 6.7% between 2015 and 2030. The analysis highlights a 'fossil-first' investment strategy where over 70% of CAPEX remains dedicated to oil and gas, and criticizes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) as fundamentally incompatible with climate goals. The document urges shareholders to vote against the management-sponsored climate resolution at the 2022 AGM.

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 study tracks Total's transition from receiving early warnings of catastrophic global warming in 1971 to a strategy of promoting scientific doubt in the late 1980s, and finally to a position of public acceptance of climate science coupled with policy delay by the late 1990s. It also notes Exxon's role in coordinating an international campaign via IPIECA to dispute climate science and weaken policy starting in the 1980s.

The report finds that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador provided at least CAD 2.5 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in FY 2020/21 and CAD 1.5 billion in FY 2021/22. It argues that these subsidies incentivize production that might not otherwise occur and hinder Canada's ability to meet its 1.5°C climate target.

The report analyzes COP26 outcomes, noting that while some progress was made in referencing human rights within Article 6 rules and the CTCN Advisory Board, overall results were marred by exclusionary participation modalities and a failure to effectively confront the fossil fuel industry. It highlights significant gaps in loss and damage finance, the removal of human rights language from the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) work program, and superficial progress on gender-responsive climate action. The document concludes by outlining critical 2022 milestones, including the first Global Stocktake and the revision of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), as key opportunities to embed human rights and climate justice.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has increased its focus on climate change in State reviews, shifting from a primary focus on developing nations to a balanced approach including developed countries. Key areas of concern include adaptation, child participation, and a growing emphasis on mitigation obligations, specifically targeting fossil fuel subsidies and emissions in the transport and aviation sectors. The CRC is also increasingly scrutinizing the role of financial institutions in funding fossil fuels. Legally, the CRC established in the Sacchi et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey case that it has jurisdiction over transboundary harm if a causal link exists between a State's emissions and the impairment of children's rights abroad, although the specific claim was dismissed on procedural grounds for failing to exhaust domestic remedies.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

The briefing argues that the Komstroy ruling effectively bars investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) between EU investors and Member States under the ECT, creating systematic obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of such awards within the EU. It highlights that EU Member States are now obliged to challenge these awards and that EU State aid rules may further prevent the payment of compensation. The document specifically applies these legal hurdles to pending cases brought by RWE and Uniper against the Netherlands regarding its coal phase-out policy.

The report identifies the fossil fuel industry as the most litigious sector in the ISDS system, accounting for nearly 20% of all known cases. It highlights a significant lack of transparency, with 54% of concluded cases remaining confidential. Findings show that investors frequently win on the merits (72% of disclosed cases) and receive substantially higher awards than non-fossil fuel investors, averaging over USD 600 million. The analysis emphasizes the role of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and contract-based arbitrations, particularly in low-income countries. The report concludes that the ISDS system can create a 'regulatory chill,' deterring states from implementing urgent climate policies and phasing out fossil fuels to meet Paris Agreement objectives.

The author examines the intersection of communication rights, human rights, and climate justice, arguing that 'communication poverty' prevents vulnerable populations from influencing climate policy. The text details how climate change disproportionately affects the Global South and racialized communities, often exacerbating existing systemic inequalities. It explores various frameworks of climate justice—including historical, per capita, and rights-based approaches—and highlights the role of the grassroots climate justice movement in challenging elite, market-based solutions. The document emphasizes that for Indigenous and marginalized groups to achieve 'parity of participation,' they must have access to media platforms and the ability to develop their own narratives to challenge dominant stereotypes and influence global decision-making processes.

Reclaim Finance asserts that TotalEnergies' corporate strategy is incompatible with climate science, specifically citing plans to increase gas production by over 30% by 2030 and expand operations in the Arctic and East Africa. The document highlights that between 2016 and 2020, over 30 commercial banks provided $40.6 billion to the company, with major contributors including Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, and several French banks. It calls for financial institutions to end support for fossil fuel developers and adopt a 'no new oil and gas' principle, citing La Banque Postale as a precedent for ending support for companies developing new oil and gas projects.

Denmark has committed to ending oil and gas production by 2050 via the 2020 North Sea Agreement. The transition is supported by a declining economic significance of the sector and the growth of green technologies like offshore wind and CCUS. While the workforce's versatility and state support may mitigate negative impacts, risks remain for workers near retirement and small suppliers unable to restructure.

The document critiques the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the 'A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy' plan for failing to engage Indigenous peoples beyond tokenism. It asserts that these policies entrench settler colonial relations and exclude Indigenous rights holders from decision-making processes. The author emphasizes that meaningful climate action requires repairing relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people, respecting generational knowledge, and shifting toward Indigenous-led policy initiatives.

The document critiques the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the 'A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy' plan for failing to establish genuine nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples. It asserts that current consultation processes are superficial, structurally exclude Indigenous voices from working groups, and ignore the role of the fossil fuel industry in violating Indigenous rights. The author emphasizes that integrating Indigenous knowledge systems—which view the Earth as a living, sacred entity—is essential for addressing the climate crisis. To remedy these failures, the document proposes a shift toward community-level engagement and the creation of an expert advisory council representing Canada's five biomes to ensure territory-based solutions.