Search Climate Insights Directory

The June roundup highlights a decline in oil production investment and a surge in clean energy spending, with solar investment nearly equaling oil production spending. It analyzes the resilience of oil markets despite conflict in the Middle East, the acceleration of peak oil demand due to electric vehicle adoption in China, and various national policy shifts in the UK, Canada, and the US. Additionally, it reports on 'world first' projects in hydrogen blending and carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the US and Norway.

The Petrogandaprisen 2025 identifies numerous instances of the oil industry's influence in Norway, categorizing nominees into eight areas: education for children and youth, sports, public festivals, campaigns, media and public debate, research, art and culture, and health and humanitarian work. The document argues that companies like Equinor, Vår Energi, and Aker BP use sponsorships and partnerships to create a positive image, target young audiences, and obstruct climate action. Specific examples include Equinor's sponsorship of the First Lego League and the Festspillene i Bergen, Vår Energi's funding of regional sports halls, and Aker BP's 'Rebels' marketing campaigns. The report also criticizes the role of media outlets like NRK and Dagens Næringsliv, as well as research institutions and humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross, for facilitating or ignoring the industry's impact on the climate crisis.

The Petroganda Prize 2025 long list identifies various entities and campaigns in Norway that the publisher, Klimakultur, views as 'petroganda'. The document categorizes these nominees into eight areas: children and youth education, sports, folk festivals, campaigns, media and public debate, research, arts and culture, and health and humanitarian work. It specifically highlights how companies like Equinor, Vår Energi, Aker BP, and Gassco sponsor science centers, sports teams, and art festivals to create a narrative of being 'part of the solution' to the climate crisis. The document argues that these partnerships allow the fossil fuel industry to influence young people and the public, effectively masking the environmental and health damages caused by oil and gas production.

Friends of the Earth International asserts that transnational corporations (TNCs) drive the climate and ecological crises while utilizing an international legal architecture to avoid accountability. The organization advocates for the UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights as a necessary mechanism to prioritize human rights and planetary health over corporate profit. The text specifically denounces the influence of corporate lobbying groups, such as the International Organisation of Employers and the International Chamber of Commerce, which it claims seek to weaken the treaty by promoting voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation. It emphasizes that climate justice is a human rights struggle led by affected communities, particularly in the Global South, and links the treaty's success to the broader goal of dismantling corporate power ahead of COP30.

A coalition of organizations denounces the Council of the European Union's position on the Omnibus I proposal, claiming it undermines the European corporate sustainability due diligence framework by raising application thresholds, limiting the scope of commercial partners, fragmenting civil liability, and weakening climate transition plan requirements.

The document concludes that mandatory CRTP disclosures, based on IFRS S2 and the TPT Disclosure Framework, are unlikely to materially increase liability risks for companies and directors due to existing legal protections and the high evidentiary hurdle of proving dishonesty. It argues that such disclosures may actually reduce overall legal risk by promoting better compliance with existing duties and mitigating greenwashing claims.

The document reports that a network of opaque online actors, some linked to the fossil fuel industry, used transnational right-wing networks and bot activity to spread false narratives about Canada's climate policies during the April 2025 election. It highlights the use of claims that climate policy would damage the economy and democracy, as well as allegations of a stolen election, while calling for stronger laws against disinformation and greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale is engaging in greenwashing by using a policy loophole to finance Adani Green Energy, despite the Adani Group's extensive coal expansion plans in India and Australia and various legal scandals involving its leadership.

Reclaim Finance accuses Société Générale of greenwashing by exploiting loopholes in its sectoral policy to continue financing the Adani Group. While the bank committed in 2020 to stop supporting new coal projects, it continues to fund Adani Green Energy, which Reclaim Finance claims redirects funds to coal expansion. The document highlights Adani's plans to increase coal power capacity by 20,550 MW in India and expand mining in India and Australia, alongside allegations of financial fraud and corruption involving Gautam Adani. Reclaim Finance calls on the AMF to intervene against this misleading communication.

The briefing identifies three primary disinformation narratives used to deflect from climate change during the 2025 Canadian wildfire season: the emphasis on arson (including conspiracy theories about 'climate change agendas'), claims of government mismanagement of resources, and accusations of 'fearmongering' by political leaders. Monitoring from April 21 to June 20, 2025, shows these narratives are most prevalent on X and right-wing outlets, often utilizing 'junk science' to discredit peer-reviewed data. The document recommends that Canadian policymakers enact laws against greenwashing, adopt a robust definition of climate disinformation, and require transparency from large online platforms to mitigate the influence of fossil fuel-backed disinformation networks.

The document outlines a framework for mobilizing capital to reduce methane emissions and flaring in the oil and gas sector. It details how to structure debt instruments—such as green, sustainable, and sustainability-linked bonds—to prioritize emission reduction projects. The guide provides a comprehensive list of eligible activities, a hierarchy for quantifying emissions, and specific KPI and Sustainability Performance Target (SPT) matrices. It emphasizes the role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and provides safeguards against 'greenwashing,' including requirements for third-party verification and rigorous reporting standards.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's guide outlines a comprehensive framework for bank transition disclosures, focusing on the decarbonisation of banking books. It establishes best practices across six key areas: commitment, baselines and targets, delivery strategy, aspects beyond emissions, governance, and reporting. The guidance emphasizes the need for banks to disclose both financed and facilitated emissions, benchmark trajectories against credible sectoral pathways, and implement specific phase-out dates for misaligned activities like unabated coal and new oil and gas exploration. It also integrates requirements for just transition principles and climate resilience, while urging alignment between transition plans and formal financial reporting to ensure credibility.

The document argues that while methane abatement is a cost-effective near-term strategy to limit global warming, capital deployment in the oil and gas sector is significantly lagging behind the targets required for the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. It proposes a framework for using use-of-proceeds (UoP) bonds, key performance indicator (KPI)-linked bonds, and conventional debt with methane-related covenants to bridge this investment gap. The authors highlight the critical role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and the need for credible, science-based guardrails to mitigate greenwashing and fungibility risks.

The Guidance for Including Methane Abatement in Oil and Gas Debt Structuring offers a framework for using debt capital markets to fund emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector. It specifically targets National Oil Companies (NOCs) and independent producers, providing detailed criteria for qualifying projects in use-of-proceeds (UoP) instruments and defining core and secondary key performance indicators (KPIs) for KPI-linked instruments. The document emphasizes the need for measurement-based quantification, external verification by subject matter experts, and guardrails to prevent greenwashing and 'transferred emissions' during asset mergers and acquisitions.

The document argues that the fossil fuel industry poses a direct threat to human health and mental wellbeing, contributing to millions of deaths and widespread climate anxiety. It specifically highlights a conflict of interest where marketing agencies serve both the health sector and fossil fuel companies, facilitating 'greenwashing' that delays climate action. The authors call on health industry leaders to review these agency relationships and cease partnerships with firms that continue to work with fossil fuel clients.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (v5.0) establishes a framework to distinguish genuine corporate climate leadership from greenwashing. It assesses companies across four pillars: comprehensive GHG emissions disclosure (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), the alignment of emission reduction targets with 1.5°C pathways, the implementation of sector-specific transitions, and the scaling of durable carbon dioxide removals (CDR). The guidance emphasizes that net-zero claims are misleading without deep absolute reductions and argues against the use of standalone Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and traditional offsetting in favor of 'climate contributions' and millennial-scale durable CDR.

The report examines how private equity firms use 'energy transition funds' to invest in 'false solutions'—technologies that are unproven, promote continued fossil fuel use, or lack accountability. It analyzes six specific industries: carbon capture, carbon trading, gas certification, hydrogen, biomass, and renewable natural gas. Through case studies of firms like BlackRock (GIP), Warburg Pincus, Quantum Capital Group, and Apollo, the report demonstrates a gap between sustainability claims and actual portfolio holdings, which remain heavily invested in fossil fuels. It concludes by providing due diligence resources for institutional investors to mitigate climate-related financial risks.

The document argues that health organizations should lead the effort to revoke the 'social license' of the fossil fuel industry by refusing to work with PR agencies linked to it. It draws a parallel between the current fossil fuel industry and the historical tobacco industry, citing CVS Health's 2014 decision to stop selling tobacco as a model for corporate responsibility. The guide outlines a 'Fossil Fuel Free Health Communications Pledge' and a three-step screening process for agencies: requesting full client disclosure, seeking a commitment to avoid future fossil fuel clients, and demanding public accountability. It also provides a list of specific questions for organizations to ask potential agencies to ensure alignment with public health and climate goals.

The document argues that fossil fuel companies use disinformation campaigns, similar to the tobacco industry's historical tactics, to obstruct climate action and harm public health. It urges health organizations to leverage their credibility and market influence—noting a healthcare advertising market valued at USD 42.28 billion in 2024—to revoke the industry's 'social license' by refusing to hire agencies with fossil fuel ties. The guide outlines a 'Commitment for Fossil-Free Health Communications' and a three-step screening process: requesting full client disclosure (specifically for the past 3 years), seeking a fossil-free commitment (such as the Clean Creatives pledge), and verifying public accountability. It cites the 2014 decision by CVS Health to stop selling tobacco products as a precedent for how health-focused entities can catalyze broader industry change by aligning business practices with health missions.

Reclaim Finance critiques PCAF's proposed expansion of avoided emissions reporting and the introduction of Expected Emission Reductions (EER), warning that these counterfactual-based metrics are subjective and prone to greenwashing. The briefing also highlights flaws in the 'financed emissions' formula, noting that it often fails to track real-world emissions due to its sensitivity to corporate value fluctuations. Reclaim Finance recommends that PCAF withdraw these proposed methodologies and instead adopt metrics that reflect actual counterparty performance and physical emissions intensities for target setting.