Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance criticizes the European Commission's June 2023 proposal to regulate ESG ratings, stating that while it improves transparency and conflict-of-interest rules, it fails to prevent greenwashing by omitting minimum standards for ESG factors. The author contends that without mandatory requirements—such as aligning the 'E' factor with 1.5°C transition plans and ensuring each factor represents at least 25% of the final score—companies can 'shop' for lenient providers to hide their actual environmental impact.

The analysis finds that most net-zero portfolio commitments by large asset managers are unlikely to achieve global net-zero emissions by mid-century and often do not signal a shift toward serious climate action. The report highlights that intensity-based sectoral targets and absolute targets without re-baselining are ineffective for driving a low-carbon transition, while short-term investor focus hinders collective action. It recommends that financial institutions, particularly universal owners, shift focus toward systematically supporting the transition of economic actors to sustainable business models and calls for more stringent oversight to prevent greenwashing.

The document assesses the role of non-state actors (NSAs) in climate action, highlighting the risk of greenwashing and the need for improved accountability. It recommends streamlining reporting to align NSA data with national governments, expanding the Global Stocktake's tracking parameters to include contextual data beyond emissions, and adapting progress tracking to account for local complexities and tangible outcomes.

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

A coalition of over 200 civil society organizations has issued a formal call to governments attending COP28, arguing that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is an unsuitable host due to systemic human rights violations and a conflict of interest involving the COP28 president. The letter demands that the UAE end unlawful surveillance, release prisoners of conscience, and abolish the Kafala system. It specifically highlights abuses of migrant workers at Expo City Dubai and the UAE's role in regional conflicts in Yemen and Libya. Furthermore, the organizations condemn the UAE's 'greenwashing' and the dual role of Sultan al-Jaber as both COP28 president and CEO of the state oil company ADNOC, calling for a global commitment to phase out all fossil fuels to maintain the 1.5C temperature goal.

The document provides a comprehensive framework for understanding climate mis- and disinformation, detailing how a coordinated 'counter-movement' of fossil fuel interests and conservative actors uses tactics like greenwashing, astroturfing, and science denial to obstruct political action. It distinguishes between misinformation (unintentional) and disinformation (deliberate) and highlights the role of social media 'mis-/disinfluencers'. To counter these trends, the briefing recommends systemic platform policies, government regulation, and psychological interventions such as prebunking and debunking.

The report evaluates Meta, TikTok, Twitter/X, YouTube, and Pinterest using a 21-point assessment system focused on policy content, transparency, advertising, privacy, and enforcement. Pinterest is identified as the industry leader, while Twitter/X is ranked lowest. The analysis highlights systemic failures across most platforms, including a lack of universal definitions for climate misinformation, poor enforcement of existing rules, and a failure to address greenwashing.

The document argues that fossil fuel advertising normalizes the use of coal, oil, and gas, and falsely presents these industries as leaders in the energy transition. It advocates for a 'tobacco-style' ban on fossil fuel promotions, asserting that healthcare workers are uniquely trusted messengers to communicate the health risks of air pollution and climate disruption. The guide outlines a five-step strategy for mobilization: connecting with health groups, developing a strategy with early movers, launching with press-worthy actions, building pressure through local or national lobbying, and evaluating progress. It highlights successful campaigns from Declare Comms in Australasia, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) in Canada, and 'Van wie is de lucht?' in the Netherlands, while also mentioning international efforts like the Global Climate and Health Alliance and the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

ClientEarth urges the FCA to implement mandatory sustainability disclosures at the point of listing, aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards, to correct information asymmetry and protect investors from climate-related financial risks. The document specifically advocates for a new 'atmospheric viability' test for fossil fuel companies' reserves in Competent Person's Reports to address stranded asset risks. Additionally, it recommends extending these requirements to the debt market and introducing stricter, contractually binding disclosures for labelled bonds to prevent greenwashing and mispricing of climate risk.

The report argues that biodiversity loss represents a material financial risk—categorised as physical, transition, and liability risks—for the seafood and agriculture sectors and their financiers. It details how these sectors depend on ecosystem services while simultaneously driving biodiversity loss through land-use change, pollution, and overexploitation. The document outlines specific legal risks under EU regulations, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as well as national laws in France, Germany, and Norway. It concludes that robust due diligence and transparent disclosure are essential for mitigating these risks and ensuring long-term business viability.

Reclaim Finance argues that the EU's climate targets cannot be met without a massive mobilization of private finance, which currently favors fossil fuels over sustainable energy. The organization proposes four key interventions: mandating a 6:1 clean energy to fossil fuel investment ratio by 2030, requiring robust and audited climate transition plans, applying the "do not significantly harm" principle to all financial services, and implementing preferential ECB refinancing rates for sustainable activities.

The report alleges that KKR's public claims of environmental responsibility are contradicted by its investment portfolio, which is 78% rooted in fossil fuels. It highlights at least $9B in funding for gas and LNG projects and notes KKR's 2022 environmental ranking of 'D'. The document warns that these investments create financial, reputational, and regulatory risks for institutional investors, particularly pension funds, and calls for the firm to adopt science-based targets, full disclosure, and a clear transition plan.

The text contends that industrial carbon removal is energy-intensive, often counterproductive if powered by renewables, and frequently used for enhanced oil recovery to increase emissions. It further argues that these technologies fail to address the health impacts of fossil fuel pollution and provide a 'PR lifeline' to companies like Occidental Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil to avoid phasing out oil production.

Private equity investments in nearly 2,700 oil and gas wells on federal and tribal lands in the western United States could leave taxpayers with cleanup costs up to $384 million. The report identifies 19 private equity firms, including Blackstone and Carlyle Group, that invested in 35 companies permitted to drill on federal lands since 2017. Current regulations only require companies to set aside approximately $5.7 million for cleanup, representing 1.5% of the estimated total cost. Colorado and New Mexico face the highest potential liabilities, with estimated cleanup bills of $161 million and $108 million, respectively.

The report identifies 19 private equity firms investing in 35 oil and gas companies that have received federal drilling permits since 2017. It estimates that U.S. taxpayers could face up to $384 million in cleanup costs for nearly 2,700 wells operated by these private-equity-backed companies across eight states, with Colorado and New Mexico facing the highest liabilities. The authors argue that the private equity business model—characterized by high leverage and quick exits—combined with outdated federal bonding requirements (averaging only $2,122 per well) and bankruptcy laws, allows firms to externalize environmental costs. The document also highlights 'greenwashing' strategies, such as the promotion of 'certified gas,' used to maintain investor support despite ongoing fossil fuel expansion.

The text defends environmental protest and civil disobedience as essential democratic instruments for addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. It highlights the role of movements like Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion in mainstreaming climate action while warning against a global trend of criminalising activists through repressive legislation. The author criticises 'greenwashing' and 'citizenwashing' by private and public sectors, particularly within the COP framework, and calls on the EU to uphold the Aarhus Convention to ensure genuine public participation in environmental decision-making.

The document is a formal letter from several NGOs to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) arguing that current SBTi guidelines are insufficient to meet the standards set by the UN High Level Expert Group's 'Integrity Matters' report. The authors identify gaps in environmental integrity, accountability, and credibility, specifically calling for a strict 1.5°C baseline, full Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and the phase-out of fossil fuels. They demand that SBTi increase transparency regarding company submissions and remove entities that fail to meet their commitments, citing JBS as an example of misleading claims.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that for Canada to meet its net-zero goals, the oil and gas sector requires transformational investment. It proposes a two-tier requirement system for the federal government's Sustainable Finance Action Council (SFAC) climate investment taxonomy: company-level net-zero targets and project-level emissions-intensity benchmarks. Specifically, it argues that "transition" labels should only apply to projects that reduce emissions from existing production, as 1.5°C pathways necessitate "no investments in new production."

The document claims that momentum has stalled regarding coal exit policies in the Paris financial center since 2019, despite previous threats of legislation by the French Minister of the Economy.