Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance asserts that the EU sustainable taxonomy's climate mitigation and adaptation criteria have been watered down due to pressure from Member states and industry lobbies. The author claims the current proposal allows for the burning of all forest biomass and creates pathways for fossil gas and nuclear energy to be labeled as sustainable, thereby undermining the EU Sustainable Finance Strategy and contradicting scientific research.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the European Commission's 2021 delegated acts for the EU sustainable taxonomy, claiming that political and industrial pressure has overridden scientific criteria. The author asserts that the current framework allows for greenwashing by adopting weak bioenergy standards and leaving the door open for fossil gas and nuclear energy, which the author argues are incompatible with the Paris Agreement goals.

The document argues that the European Central Bank (ECB) remains inactive regarding climate risks despite exploratory work. It claims the ECB's 'market neutrality' principle creates a 'carbon bias' that supports fossil fuel companies and warns that the bank's focus on 'green' or 'sustainability-linked' bonds may facilitate greenwashing. Furthermore, the author highlights a lack of transparency regarding the ECB's non-monetary portfolios and their exposure to carbon-intensive sectors.

ClientEarth argues that the BEIS proposals for climate-related financial disclosures are inadequate and recommends a mandatory approach aligned with the full TCFD framework and Paris Agreement goals, supported by stronger regulatory enforcement and auditor assurance.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1.0 billion "Sustainability Linked" credit facility from five major banks, asserting that the company's ESG goals are insufficient and serve to mask the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. The author contends that Enbridge's net-zero and GHG intensity targets only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, representing less than 2% of the lifecycle emission intensity of oil sands. Furthermore, the document highlights that the Line 3 pipeline project in Minnesota, supported by such funding, increases GHG emissions and violates the treaty rights of the Anishinaabeg.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.

Twenty-two environmental and climate justice organizations, coordinated by Clean Creatives, are urging PR and advertising agencies to stop working with the fossil fuel industry. The groups argue that these agencies profit from campaigns that spread climate disinformation, greenwash the image of oil, gas, and coal companies, and block climate action, which disproportionately harms Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color.

The report argues that Ecoembes and Ecovidrio, the dominant waste management systems in Spain, use their monopoly power and lobbying to prevent the adoption of a mandatory Deposit Return System (SDDR). It highlights that these organizations benefit financially from increased plastic packaging volume, creating a conflict of interest that hinders EU recycling targets. The document also criticizes major supermarkets like Mercadona for opposing the SDDR and promotes the legislative progress in the Balearic Islands as a model for the rest of the country.

The report argues that Spain's plastic waste management is dominated by monopolies like Ecoembes and Ecovidrio, whose business models profit from increased plastic packaging, leading them to lobby against effective solutions like DRS. It highlights the financial burden of litter clean-up on taxpayers, estimated at up to €744 million annually, and criticises retailers for their lack of transparency and opposition to mandatory reforms. While some regions like the Balearic Islands are implementing ambitious laws, the report warns that the Spanish government remains susceptible to industry lobbying, which threatens the country's ability to meet EU targets for separate collection and recycled content by 2030.

ClientEarth argues that the EU is overinvesting in methane gas infrastructure and urges the Commission to implement a methane product standard by 2025 to integrate climate costs into gas prices. The document recommends that public financial support for methane gas or gas-derived hydrogen be precluded or strictly conditioned on carbon capture and storage (CCS) and lifecycle emission caps. It further calls for institutional reform to ensure independent energy system planning, the prioritisation of energy efficiency over new infrastructure, and the cessation of the term 'natural gas' to avoid greenwashing.

The document urges French financial regulators (ACPR and AMF) to implement stricter oversight of fossil fuel financing, combat greenwashing in ESG products, and integrate climate risks into prudential requirements and fiduciary duties to align the financial sector with a 1.5°C trajectory.

ClientEarth argues that HSBC faces significant financial, reputational, and legal risks by continuing to finance fossil fuels. The organization supports a shareholder resolution calling for a Paris-aligned strategy with short, medium, and long-term targets, specifically starting with coal. ClientEarth contends that HSBC's current net zero ambitions and transition financing pledges are insufficient without a concrete plan to reduce fossil fuel exposure, noting that the bank is Europe's second largest financier of fossil fuels.

The report 'Fossil Fashion' details how the fast-fashion industry is fundamentally dependent on cheap synthetic fibres, primarily polyester, which are derived from oil and gas. This reliance drives overconsumption and a waste crisis, as synthetic textiles are difficult to recycle and release toxic microfibres. The document highlights the role of the petrochemical industry in betting on plastic production for future growth and criticizes industry-led sustainability metrics and 'recycled polyester' from PET bottles as greenwashing. It concludes with recommendations for the EU to implement mandatory due diligence, eco-design measures, and taxes on virgin plastics to decouple fashion from fossil fuels.

ClientEarth's review of 250 large UK-listed companies reveals a systemic failure to provide material climate-related financial information, with only 4% including such factors in financial accounts and 4% of auditors explicitly addressing them. While narrative risk disclosures are improving, they are often boilerplate. The report recommends mandatory TCFD-aligned reporting, stronger regulatory enforcement to prevent 'greenwash', and increased investor stewardship.

The author contends that voluntary carbon offsetting is risky and unsustainable, often leading to double counting where both a company and a host country claim the same emission reductions. The document proposes a 'contribution claim' model, combined with internal carbon pricing, where companies fund climate action in other countries to support Paris Agreement goals without claiming carbon neutrality. If offsetting continues, the author insists on 'corresponding adjustments' to ensure reductions are not counted toward national targets, while warning that financing projects in countries with low ambition rewards 'climate laggards'.

Carbon Market Watch expresses significant concerns regarding the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets' blueprint, stating that it risks creating a speculative financial market that benefits the financial sector more than the climate. The organization argues that scaling the market without first addressing systemic integrity issues, such as the lack of transparency and the use of low-quality offsets, could lead to widespread greenwashing and a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. It specifically opposes the use of biological carbon sinks for offsets due to non-permanence and measurement uncertainties, and rejects the introduction of core carbon spot and futures contracts as a means of increasing opacity.

The document details the three-phase development of the Water Infrastructure Criteria, which aim to prevent 'greenwashing' in the green bond market by providing scientific standards for water-related investments. It covers built, nature-based, and hybrid infrastructure, with a specific focus on the newly added desalination criteria. The framework emphasizes a process-based approach to climate vulnerability assessments and sets a carbon intensity threshold of 100gCO2/kWh for desalination plants to align with the Paris Agreement.

ClientEarth argues that EU State aid rules must be transformed into sustainability instruments that prohibit support for fossil fuels and harmful biomass, while prioritizing energy efficiency and renewable energy. The document calls for the strict application of the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, the exclusion of low-carbon (fossil gas-based) hydrogen from subsidies, and the removal of aid for high-efficiency combined heat and power (CHP) plants. It further recommends increasing support for energy communities, zero-emission vehicles, and energy efficiency in buildings, while introducing a 'greenwashing test' to ensure the environmental integrity of aid beneficiaries.

The report examines the role of the advertising and PR industry in supporting fossil fuel companies, arguing that these agencies facilitate greenwashing and disinformation. It highlights a growing movement of professionals rejecting such work and documents the contradiction between the sustainability pledges of major agency holding companies and their continued representation of high-polluting clients. The document provides a list of 90 agencies working for the fossil fuel industry and presents case studies of misleading campaigns in Australia, the United States, and Europe.

The study examines the link between green bonds and climate targets for the twenty largest European green bond issuers in 2018. It finds a disconnect between these issuers' climate targets and their green bond frameworks, alongside deficiencies in post-issuance reporting. The author concludes that there is minimal pressure for issuers to align bond proceeds with ambitious science-based targets, suggesting a need for policy intervention to prevent greenwashing and align the market with planetary boundaries.