Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Reclaim Finance and Greenpeace France, urges AXA to align its energy policy with the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario by stopping the underwriting of new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure. The letter argues that AXA, as a leader in the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance and a pioneer in coal divestment, must now phase out support for oil and gas expansion to maintain its climate credibility and shareholder value.

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Reclaim Finance and Greenpeace, is urging AXA to end its insurance services for new oil and gas production and transportation infrastructure. The letter argues that AXA, as a leader in the insurance industry and chair of the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance, should follow the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2021 World Energy Outlook, which states that no new fossil fuel exploration or fields are required for a net-zero scenario. The authors highlight AXA's previous leadership in divesting from coal and suggest that a similar exit from oil and gas would benefit both the climate and the company's shareholder value.

The Center for Climate Integrity asserts that the Chamber of Commerce has known about the dangers of fossil fuels since the 1980s but spent decades sowing doubt about climate science. The statement highlights the Chamber's role in the Global Climate Coalition, its lobbying efforts to weaken EPA regulations, and its financial support for politicians who oppose climate action, including funding a study used to justify the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

The document highlights a significant discrepancy between the UK advertising industry's operational carbon footprint and the emissions of its fossil fuel clients, urging the industry to include client impact in its net zero accounting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists documents how the fossil fuel industry in Colorado employs four primary disinformation tactics—The Fix, The Diversion, The Screen, and The Fake—to maintain political control and undermine public health and safety. The report details the industry's use of front groups, lobbying, and misleading economic claims to thwart regulations and ballot initiatives, while highlighting the disproportionate impact of pollution on communities of color and low-income residents. It concludes with recommendations for state regulators to prioritize science and community voices over industry profits.

The document is an open letter from students and junior professionals in the advertising and PR industry demanding that agencies stop working with fossil fuel companies. The authors argue that the marketing industry facilitates climate inaction by amplifying disinformation and greenwashing for the world's largest polluters. They urge agency leadership to take a stand and encourage current employees to challenge their leadership or reject fossil fuel projects.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

The document examines the role of economic consultants hired by the petroleum industry to undermine US climate policy initiatives. It argues that these consultants used models that inflated costs and ignored benefits, presenting their industry-sponsored findings as independent to delay policies such as carbon pricing and international climate agreements.

The report identifies 90 advertising and PR companies working for the fossil fuel industry, highlighting a conflict between the sustainability pledges of major holding companies and their continued representation of high-polluting clients. It details specific case studies of disinformation and lobbying efforts in the US, Australia, and the EU, while warning that the term 'Net Zero' is being used as a primary tool for greenwashing ahead of the 2021 Glasgow climate talks.

The document is an open letter from emerging professionals in the advertising and PR sectors who argue that their industry is facilitating climate inaction by working for fossil fuel companies. The authors demand that agencies stop representing oil, gas, and coal companies, as well as their associated trade associations and front groups, to end the spread of climate denial and greenwashing. They urge current agency leadership and employees to reject fossil fuel projects and sign the Clean Creatives pledge to ensure a viable future for the next generation.

RMI proposes a framework for 'climate intelligence' based on four pillars: emissions visibility, standardized accounting, digitized infrastructure using distributed ledger technology, and the scaling of these standards in markets. The document highlights the need to harmonize over 250 existing GHG accounting methodologies to create a 'digital schema' for carbon attribution. A key initiative mentioned is Horizon Zero, funded by a $10 million grant from the Larsen Lam Climate Change Foundation, which aims to apply digital disclosure models from the cryptocurrency industry to heavy industrial sectors like steel and cement. The author contends that digitization will make GHG and ESG disclosures as seamless as financial accounting, aligning with emerging regulatory trends in the EU and US.

The author contends that Total's climate strategy is incompatible with the IEA's net-zero scenario, as the company continues to expand oil and gas production while allocating only a small fraction of investment to renewables. The text highlights a contradiction among major investors—including AXA, BNP Paribas, and Amundi—who claim climate commitments but voted in favor of Total's plan to protect short-term dividends.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Total's climate plan and the shareholders who supported it, arguing that the plan ignores IEA guidelines by continuing investment in new oil and gas projects. The author highlights a contradiction where investors, including AXA and BNP Paribas, support the plan despite their own carbon neutrality commitments, suggesting that short-term dividends are prioritized over the energy transition.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

The report analyzes 2019 emissions data for U.S. onshore oil and gas production, finding that emissions are highly concentrated among a small number of producers and basins. It highlights significant variance in emissions intensity across companies and identifies pneumatic controllers and fuel combustion equipment as primary sources of methane and CO2 emissions, respectively. The analysis also notes that official reported data likely underestimate actual emissions due to the omission of high-emitting abnormal process conditions and facilities below reporting thresholds.

Reclaim Finance argues that AXA has abandoned its climate leadership by refusing to commit to ending investments or insurance coverage for oil and gas production, including shale gas. The organization highlights AXA's reliance on collective 'net zero' alliances to avoid individual responsibility and criticizes AXA's potential support for Total's climate plan, which Reclaim Finance claims is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal. Additionally, AXA is criticized for continuing to invest in Fortum despite the pro-coal lobbying activities of its subsidiary, Uniper.

The document outlines how fossil fuel companies use misleading advertising to appear more sustainable than they are. It specifically critiques claims regarding the sustainability of natural gas, the viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the effectiveness of carbon offsets and nature-based solutions, and the carbon neutrality of wood biomass energy.

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 contends that the Biden administration should implement strong methane standards in its new NDC, noting that the U.S. could reduce oil and gas sector methane emissions by up to 65 percent using existing technology. Such a move would provide immediate climate benefits, improve health for millions living near facilities, and encourage similar actions from major emitters like China, India, and Russia.