Search Climate Insights Directory

The Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) compares a bank's financing of fossil fuels against its financing of sustainable alternatives, with a target ratio of 6:1 by 2030 based on IEA scenarios. Reclaim Finance warns that varying methodologies allow banks to present misleading ratios, often by excluding capital market activities or including fossil-fuel-related technologies like CCUS in 'low-carbon' scopes. While some North American and French banks have begun publishing these ratios, significant gaps in transparency and scope persist.

The Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) compares a bank's financing of fossil fuels against its financing of sustainable energy alternatives. Based on the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, a ratio of 6:1 is required by 2030 to meet climate goals. However, Reclaim Finance finds that the 65 largest global banks averaged a ratio of only 0.42:1 between 2021 and 2024. The document warns that banks often use misleading methodologies—such as excluding capital markets activities or including fossil-fuel-linked technologies like CCUS in 'low-carbon' categories—to greenwash their climate strategies.

The report details how Shell and TotalEnergies integrate themselves across the VCM value chain—from project development and trading to influencing governance—to maintain fossil fuel production while claiming progress toward net-zero. It highlights systemic issues with the integrity of the credits they use, specifically in forestry and cookstove projects, and notes that neither company has a decarbonisation plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

Mighty Earth's CEO asserts that JBS's decision to drop its 2040 net-zero target exposes the company's lack of a credible climate plan. The author claims the original target was deceptive, focusing only on Scope 1 and 2 emissions while JBS continued to drive large-scale deforestation and expand cattle slaughter in Brazil and Nigeria. The document calls for continued pressure from investors and governments to push JBS toward large-scale solutions like regenerative practices and animal-free protein.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Council of the European Union for proposing that "transition" funds under the SFDR be available to oil and gas companies, provided they meet a 20% EU Taxonomy capex threshold and set Scope 1 and 2 targets. The author contends this position, influenced by lobbying from entities like TotalEnergies and the French government, ignores Scope 3 emissions and allows continued fossil fuel expansion. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds to ensure the credibility of sustainable finance.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the EU Council's June 2026 position on the SFDR, which would allow fossil fuel developers to access "transition" funds based on a 20% capex alignment with the EU taxonomy and scope 1 and 2 decarbonization targets. The author contends this approach, influenced by oil and gas lobbying—specifically TotalEnergies and the French government—ignores scope 3 emissions and risks legitimizing greenwashing. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds during its September 2026 deliberations.

The F-List 2026 identifies 1,321 contracts between 802 agencies and 386 fossil fuel clients across 73 countries. The report argues that creative agencies facilitate a 'creative cover-up' by positioning fossil fuels as essential for energy security and economic stability, while often ignoring the 'advertised emissions' generated by these campaigns in their own sustainability reporting. Key findings highlight that Omnicom holds the highest number of fossil fuel contracts ever recorded (118), while Edelman is identified as having the highest financial dependency on fossil fuel income among holding companies at an estimated 5.64% of revenue. The report also notes a trend of using natural gas as a 'driver of progress' in recent campaigns in Japan and Colombia.

The document analyzes the rising trend of greenwashing litigation and regulatory enforcement against companies using carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. It highlights a divergence between the European Union, UK, and Australia—where courts and regulators are increasingly skeptical of offsetting—and the United States, where outdated guidelines and judicial reluctance have created a more fragmented enforcement landscape. The briefing concludes that companies face growing financial and reputational risks and should shift from compensation-based claims to genuine internal emissions reductions.

QuotaClimat has issued 17 recommendations to the French government to ensure the upcoming national plan on environmental and climate information effectively tackles disinformation. These proposals focus on monitoring media coverage, protecting environmental spokespeople, funding research, and strengthening regulatory frameworks like the Digital Services Act and the roles of VIGINUM and Arcom. The initiative follows France's commitment to the Global Declaration for Climate Information Integrity at COP30 and recommendations from the High Council for the Climate 2025 report.

A group of health professionals and advocates is appealing to the Minister of Industry to reopen a Competition Bureau investigation into the Canadian Gas Association's (CGA) 'Fuelling Canada' campaign. The applicants argue that the Bureau's decision to drop the inquiry simply because the CGA removed the claims does not remedy public health harms, deter greenwashing, or provide market clarity. They highlight a systemic pattern of the Bureau closing environmental and health-related deceptive marketing cases without formal determinations, citing similar outcomes for the Pathways Alliance and Shell Canada.

The document analyzes how the plastics industry employs nine recurring disinformation frames—ranging from denialism and victim blaming to the promotion of pseudo-solutions like chemical recycling—to protect its legitimacy and deflect responsibility for plastic pollution. It argues that these narratives are amplified by digital algorithms and AI, and recommends upstream policy interventions, including production caps and legal accountability for producers, to address the root causes of the plastics crisis.

The report argues that fossil fuel interests use corporate lobbying, trade associations, and advisory roles to maintain the availability of cheap, low-quality carbon credits to avoid structural decarbonization. It details specific efforts to weaken California's cap-and-trade program and oppose transparency laws like AB 1305, while highlighting the role of the CFTC in federal oversight. The document concludes with recommendations to ban fossil fuel companies from climate advisory roles and eliminate carbon credits from California's compliance mechanisms.

The paper examines the UK's Enhanced Trade Partnerships (ETPs), which are non-binding memoranda of understanding that sit between informal commercial meetings (JETCOs) and binding Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). While ETPs frequently reference sustainability and can facilitate 'green' trade and regulatory diplomacy, the author argues they primarily serve offensive trade interests and lack the civil society oversight necessary to prevent 'greenwashing'.

The document argues that TotalEnergies SE has misled investors by claiming alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to increase fossil fuel production. It highlights the systemic financial risk climate change poses to global portfolios and asserts that TotalEnergies' disclosures—including claims about the role of natural gas as a transition fuel and the 'substitution' argument for continued extraction—are inaccurate. The authors call for an AMF investigation into potential breaches of the AMF General Regulations, the European Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and the French Monetary and Financial Code.

The letter argues that high-emitting companies, particularly 'Carbon Majors' like TotalEnergies, provide misleading information to investors regarding their alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to expand fossil fuel production. It asserts that climate change poses a systemic financial risk, with potential GDP losses of 50% by 2070-2090, and that current economic models underestimate these damages by ignoring tipping points. The authors highlight a 2025 Paris Judicial Court ruling that TotalEnergies misled consumers and call for ESMA to encourage national authorities to take enforcement action against investor-facing greenwashing to protect market integrity.

ClientEarth, Amis de la Terre France, and Notre Affaire à Tous allege that TotalEnergies SE has misled investors by claiming alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to increase fossil fuel production. The report argues that such misinformation obscures systemic financial risks, as climate change threatens global economic stability and asset valuations. It specifically challenges the company's claims regarding the role of natural gas as a 'transition energy' and its 'net zero' ambitions, citing a 2025 Paris court ruling that found the company's consumer communications to be misleading.

ClientEarth warns FMCG companies that relying on recycling is insufficient to mitigate legal risks and urges a shift toward upstream plastic reduction. The document details risks from mandatory due diligence laws, product liability for health harms, and anti-greenwashing enforcement, specifically targeting misleading 'recyclable' claims. It also highlights the impact of the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) on plastic-related disclosures.

The document argues that the traditional carbon offsetting model is fundamentally flawed and misleading, urging companies to adopt Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM). Unlike offsetting, which claims to 'cancel out' emissions, BVCM involves supporting external climate projects as a contribution to global goals without claiming carbon neutrality. The guide outlines the legal and reputational risks of offsetting—including a September 2026 EU ban on product-level offsetting claims—and provides a five-step implementation framework for BVCM. It suggests diversifying contributions beyond carbon credits into durable carbon removals (CDR), 'high-hanging fruit' technology research, and climate impact funds, while emphasizing that external action must not replace internal decarbonization aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory.

The report identifies 47 unchallenged cases of climate misinformation across six German TV channels (Sat.1, ZDF, ProSieben, RTL, Das Erste, and Kabel Eins) from April 2025 to April 2026. It finds that misinformation is often reactive, peaking around political events like the 2025 federal elections and the 2026 Climate Action Programme. The most dominant narratives target the economic and technical reliability of the Energiewende, while others focus on nuclear energy inaccuracies and the deflection of national responsibility. Politicians and guests are the primary vectors, accounting for 70% of cases, though journalists and commentators also contribute nearly 30%. Both public (ZDF) and private (Sat.1) broadcasters show vulnerability, with ZDF's risk linked to political talk shows and Sat.1's to the loosely structured format of morning shows. The report recommends journalist training on obstruction mechanisms, real-time fact-checking for live panels, and the creation of an independent media observatory.

The report analyzes greenwashing regulations in 12 countries, finding that while core principles of truthfulness and transparency are common, there is significant uncertainty regarding what constitutes adequate evidence for substantiation. It highlights that current frameworks often place a disproportionate burden on SMEs and smallholders and suggests that the credibility of voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) needs clearer recognition criteria.