Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance criticizes a statement released by the SBTi Board of Trustees on April 9, 2024, which suggested extending the use of environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 emissions abatement. The organization asserts that this move contradicts existing SBTi policy, which limits carbon credits to long-term net-zero targets for residual emissions (up to 10%), and was made without consulting the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) or Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). Reclaim Finance warns that this decision threatens the scientific integrity of science-based targets and could facilitate greenwashing.

The document examines the gap between the public's desire for climate action and the reality of their savings often financing fossil fuels. It proposes a systemic shift in the financial sector to make sustainable savings the default and transparent choice, suggesting tools like an 'eco-score' for financial products and the removal of barriers to switching between funds.

The report argues that Occidental Petroleum's (Oxy) climate strategy is misaligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It finds that Oxy's net-zero targets are inadequate, focusing primarily on scope 1 and 2 emissions while ignoring the vast majority of its carbon footprint in scope 3. The analysis highlights a heavy overreliance on unproven direct air capture (DAC) technology, which the report claims is used as a 'licence to pollute' and a mechanism to prolong oil and gas extraction through enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The report further asserts that Oxy's 'net-zero oil' claims are scientifically invalid and that its lobbying efforts for government subsidies for carbon removals contradict its public climate commitments.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 finds that the median absolute emissions reduction commitment for 51 assessed companies is only 30% by 2030, falling short of the 43%-48% reduction required by the IPCC. The report criticizes the heavy reliance on 'questionable solutions' such as carbon offsets, insetting, and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to mask a lack of genuine decarbonization. It specifically highlights a 'Scope 3 loophole' in the VCMI framework that could allow companies to use credits for up to 50% of their annual Scope 3 emissions. The document advocates for 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) and calls for the European Union to ban all compensation claims and for the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to prohibit the use of carbon credits to meet targets.

The guide establishes a methodology for assessing corporate climate responsibility across four key areas: emissions tracking and disclosure, target setting, emission reduction measures, and responsibility for unabated and residual emissions. It emphasizes alignment with 1.5°C-compatible pathways, the necessity of covering all emission scopes (including Scope 3), and the distinction between genuine emission reductions and misleading offsetting or 'insetting' claims. The document provides specific benchmarks for various industrial sectors and detailed criteria for high-integrity renewable electricity procurement and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies.

The report finds that 84% of analyzed employee savings funds invest in fossil fuel expansion, with Amundi and Natixis Investment Managers dominating the market. It highlights a lack of transparency, the prevalence of 'greenwashed' funds, and the inefficiency of supervisory boards in protecting employees' climate interests.

The document outlines the two primary types of carbon markets—cap-and-trade and carbon crediting systems—and distinguishes between compliance markets, which are based on obligatory targets, and voluntary markets used for corporate social responsibility. It highlights the role of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in establishing new international market mechanisms. The text critically assesses carbon offsetting, particularly REDD+ forestry projects, noting that they often generate exaggerated credits and lack adequate safeguards. It concludes that carbon credits cannot scientifically be proven to reliably neutralise one tonne of CO2 and recommends that companies move toward a 'climate contribution' or 'beyond value chain mitigation' (BVCM) model to provide climate finance without making misleading offsetting claims.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), specifically Targets 4, 15, and 16. It highlights the positive call to integrate biodiversity into all regulatory processes (Target 4) and the goal to reduce negative corporate impacts (Target 15). However, it criticizes the framework for favoring voluntary 'encouragement' over mandatory regulation, relying on corporate self-reporting through platforms like the TNFD, and omitting human rights protections from Target 15. The author urges civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate government policies and to advocate for a binding UN Treaty on TNCs and Human Rights.

The report critiques the industrial agri-food system, describing it as a network of producers, processors, and retailers that prioritizes profit maximization through intensive monocultures and chemical inputs. It argues that corporate-led initiatives—such as sustainability certifications, 'sustainable intensification,' and 'regenerative agriculture'—are 'false solutions' designed to greenwash industrial practices, capture carbon markets, and shift responsibility to consumers. The document highlights the negative impacts of this model, including deforestation, human rights violations, and the marginalization of small-scale farmers, while contrasting these with 'people's solutions' based on food sovereignty and agroecology.

The fact sheet analyzes the Global Biodiversity Framework, specifically Targets 14, 15, and 16, arguing that while it advocates for integrating biodiversity into regulatory processes, it relies too heavily on corporate self-reporting and 'carrots' rather than binding regulations. It criticizes the framework for enabling greenwashing through platforms like the TNFD and for omitting human rights protections in Target 15, urging civil society to use the framework to challenge ineffective government policies.

The document analyzes Targets 14, 15, and 16 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It acknowledges the goal of integrating biodiversity into regulatory processes and reducing corporate impacts but criticizes the reliance on 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approaches. Specifically, it argues that self-reporting mechanisms like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and corporate-led labelling facilitate greenwashing. The author highlights the omission of human rights from Target 15 and the absence of coherent international systems to regulate transnational corporations (TNCs), urging civil society to use the GBF to challenge inadequate national policies.

The report reveals that 70% of analyzed 'sustainable' passive funds from five major asset managers are exposed to fossil fuel expansion, highlighting a critical 'blindspot' in climate policies. It argues that passive investing is not a neutral process but a series of active management choices, and calls for regulators to forbid the sale of funds with misleading sustainability claims that support fossil fuel developers.

The guide outlines how to detect greenwashing by analyzing emissions data, target setting, and the use of controversial technologies. It emphasizes the importance of absolute emissions over intensity targets and warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets, natural gas, and unproven carbon removal technologies.

Carbon Market Watch criticizes the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) provisional deal, claiming it allows carbon removals and temporary storage to substitute for actual emission reductions. The organization warns that the framework enables double counting between voluntary markets and national climate policies, incentivizes short-term carbon storage that lacks long-term climate benefit, and employs insufficient sustainability criteria for biomass. While noting some positive inclusions like mandatory biodiversity co-benefits for carbon farming, CMW asserts the CRCF is a 'missed opportunity' that could deter climate action and calls for the deal to be rejected and rebooted.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' updated climate policies are insufficient and constitute greenwashing, as they lack firm commitments to end fossil fuel expansion and dilute previous energy transition engagements.

The document explains the distinction between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and baseline-and-credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from Kyoto Protocol markets to the Paris Agreement's Article 6. It critiques carbon offsetting for enabling greenwashing and failing to reduce absolute emissions, while highlighting the specific shortcomings of CORSIA and REDD+. The guide advocates for a shift toward a 'climate contribution' approach where credits are cancelled without offsetting claims to support global climate action.

The document explains the distinction between emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critically assesses the effectiveness of various market mechanisms, including Article 6.2 and 6.4, CORSIA, and REDD+, highlighting systemic risks such as 'hot air', double counting, and greenwashing. The guide argues against the use of offsets for carbon neutrality and proposes a 'climate contribution' approach instead.

The document explains the difference between cap-and-trade systems and carbon credit mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critiques carbon offsetting as a tool for greenwashing and argues for a shift toward 'climate contributions' where credits are retired without claims of neutrality.

The document serves as a comprehensive primer on carbon markets, distinguishing between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms. It details the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to the Paris Agreement's Article 6, while critically assessing the risks of carbon offsetting, such as 'greenwashing' and the 'hot air' problem. The guide also examines the CORSIA framework for aviation and the private certification standards of the voluntary market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' model.

Reclaim Finance argues that TotalEnergies' climate strategy is insufficient for a 1.5°C target, citing continued fossil fuel expansion and inadequate low-carbon investment. The document details the financial networks supporting the company, critiques the 'laxity' of French asset managers like Amundi, and proposes a comprehensive suite of regulatory and monetary reforms to redirect financial flows away from fossil fuels.