Search Climate Insights Directory

A group of environmental and social organizations has sent a letter to Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors urging the firm to transition its portfolio away from fossil fuels and toward a pollution-free energy system. The letter demands the disclosure of emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3) for energy holdings, a commitment to invest a majority of new energy capital in renewables by 2025, and the publication of political spending policies to ensure alignment with a 1.5 degree scenario from the Paris Agreement.

A group of environmental and social organizations is urging Macquarie Infrastructure to transition its portfolio to net-zero energy, disclose emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario.

A group of environmental and social organizations is calling on Oaktree Capital to transition its portfolio to net-zero energy, implement a just transition for affected communities, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario.

A group of climate and social justice organizations has issued a formal demand to Warburg Pincus to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter calls for the firm to disclose emissions for current and future energy holdings, shift new energy capital to renewables by 2025-2030, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario. Additionally, the signatories demand a just transition program for workers and communities impacted by the firm's fossil fuel assets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing oil, gas, and mining companies up to three years to develop 'net zero' plans, arguing this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights a contradiction where Aviva maintains investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore despite a 2030 coal exit pledge. Specifically, it points to Aviva's management of a Polish pension fund with over 250 million euros in coal sector investments, including increased holdings in Enea, PGE, and CEZ in 2020, as well as investments in PGNiG.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing fossil fuel companies up to three years to develop net zero plans, arguing that this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights contradictions in Aviva's policy, specifically noting continued investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore, and significant holdings in Polish coal and gas companies such as PGE and PGNiG through third-party managed assets.

The report analyzes China's green finance landscape, noting that while significant progress was made during the 13th Five-Year Plan through top-down policy and the growth of green loans and bonds, current funding levels are insufficient. It estimates that annual investment must increase fourfold to approximately $1.4 trillion to meet 2015 climate goals. The analysis highlights a heavy reliance on public sector funding, with 51% of green finance coming from public sources, and identifies barriers for private sector participation, including high search costs and a lack of incentive structures. The report also examines the potential for 'greening' the Belt and Road Initiative, where half of energy-related investments currently go to fossil fuels, and suggests leveraging fintech and innovative risk-sharing mechanisms to expand the climate finance scale.

China has made significant progress in establishing a green financial system, with green credit and bonds becoming the largest in the world. However, the system remains heavily dominated by public actors, with public sources accounting for 51% of total green finance. To meet its 2015 environmental standards and climate targets, China requires an estimated USD 1.4 trillion in annual investment over the next decade, meaning current finance levels must scale up by at least four times. Key barriers to private capital include a lack of transparency in project pipelines, high search costs for impact investors, and a preference for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in formal financing channels. The report highlights opportunities in green fintech, such as Ant Forest, and matchmaking platforms like those in Huzhou. It also examines China's outbound finance, noting that half of energy-related investments in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries went to fossil fuels, and suggests implementing mandatory exclusion lists and green standards to decarbonize these flows.

The report identifies a $1 trillion stranded asset risk associated with 212,000 km of planned oil and gas pipeline expansions. It highlights that gas dominates new developments, with 82.7% of pipelines in development carrying gas. The U.S. and China are leading in capacity and length growth, respectively. The document argues that this expansion is incompatible with net-zero commitments and will lock in significant CO2 emissions, while noting a trend of increasing social and legal opposition to such projects.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The document analyzes the gap between Total SE's public climate ambitions and its actual business strategy, which continues to prioritize fossil fuel expansion. It highlights the role of French banks and investors in supporting this model and calls for a shift toward absolute emission reductions and the cessation of new fossil fuel projects.

The document provides an update on The Geological Society's financial ties to fossil fuel and arms corporations. While it acknowledges a new responsible investment policy from September 2020 that excludes certain arms and high-emissions fossil fuels, it highlights a significant decrease in investment transparency between 2015 and 2019. The report details extensive corporate sponsorship from oil and gas companies and argues that these ties, along with investments in companies like Shell and Total, are incompatible with the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.

The report advocates for the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change to address the holistic impact of the climate crisis on human rights. Based on consultations with 157 participants across 55 countries, it argues that a dedicated mandate would ensure consistency in how the Human Rights Council addresses climate change, increase accountability for state and non-state actors, and protect vulnerable groups, including Indigenous Peoples and environmental defenders. The document outlines regional priorities—such as addressing climate debt in Africa and climate displacement in Asia and the Pacific—and emphasizes the need for the role to be supported by sufficient financial resources and political will from Member States.

The report finds a stark contrast between public support for climate action in Massachusetts and the actual legislative outcomes. While approximately 90% of public testimony supports environmental priorities, ambitious legislation is frequently blocked by powerful industry coalitions—most notably regulated utilities and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). The study identifies four primary opposition coalitions: utilities, fossil and chemical companies, real estate, and power generation companies. It highlights that utilities are uniquely successful in steering policy, often opposing decentralized solar energy while supporting large-scale wind and hydro projects that benefit their business models. Furthermore, the report notes a shift in opposition rhetoric from climate denial to 'discourses of delay,' such as policy perfectionism and appeals to social justice. The authors conclude that the lack of transparency in the State House, combined with the immense spending power of corporate lobbyists, creates a hostile environment for ambitious climate policy.

The report finds that BlackRock continues to invest heavily in coal and other fossil fuels despite public pledges to invest sustainably. It highlights significant loopholes in BlackRock's coal policy and a systemic issue where passively managed assets—comprising the majority of its portfolio—are exempt from exclusion criteria.

The document outlines eight key demands for Crédit Agricole to align its financial activities with the 1.5°C climate goal. These include ending support for coal projects and companies like Glencore and PGE, divesting from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and ceasing all financing for hydrocarbon development, specifically unconventional oil and gas and projects in the Arctic and Mozambique. It also calls for the bank to vote against Total's climate strategy and adopt a zero-deforestation policy for imported soy, particularly concerning the Cerrado region.

Reclaim Finance criticizes BlackRock's 2021 Stewardship Expectations, arguing that the asset manager's commitment to support more climate-related shareholder votes is undermined by a lack of robust engagement strategies. The document highlights that BlackRock supported only 11% of climate resolutions in 2020 and continues to invest in companies expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, including 240 companies planning new coal projects. Reclaim Finance asserts that effective engagement requires public, time-bound demands for 1.5ºC alignment and absolute emission reductions by 2030, alongside the use of divestment for non-transitioning companies.

The 2020 Scorecard reveals a growing trend of insurers retreating from coal, with at least 23 companies ending or limiting cover for coal projects. While coal insurance is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain, the report finds that the industry has largely failed to take comprehensive action on oil and gas. European and Australian insurers are leading the transition, whereas companies in the U.S., Japan, and the Lloyd's market are identified as laggards. The report also highlights a significant increase in coal divestment, with 65 insurers now having policies covering over $12 trillion in assets.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Net-zero Asset Owner Alliance's (NZAOA) target setting protocol contains loopholes regarding divestment strategies, the use of unrealistic climate scenarios, the lack of mandatory absolute reduction targets, and the absence of measures against anti-climate lobbying.

The report finds that international and domestic public finance for forests is significantly lower than the sector's climate mitigation potential. It highlights a gap where 'grey' finance for agriculture far outweighs 'green' finance for forest protection. Additionally, the document notes that most major financial institutions lack deforestation policies, and private investment in sustainable commodity production remains difficult to quantify and insufficient in scale.