Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Greenpeace and Reclaim Finance, responded to the French Senate's inquiry into TotalEnergies. While they welcome the report's critical assessment of TotalEnergies' "climaticide" strategy and its expansion of fossil fuels, they argue that the 33 recommendations lack the binding measures necessary to align the company with the Paris Agreement. The associations specifically criticize the absence of super-profit taxation and the perceived weakness of the French state in regulating the multinational.

The document criticizes the financing of the Stade LNG terminal in Germany, arguing that such projects create an unnecessary dependence on fossil gas and contradict climate goals. It highlights a disconnect between banks' public climate commitments and their continued funding of LNG import and export infrastructure.

A group of scientists and researchers calls on Citi to cease financing fossil fuel expansion, citing the bank's role as the second-largest financier of fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement. The authors argue that such financing exacerbates the climate crisis and disproportionately harms frontline communities, specifically mentioning impacts in the US, the Amazon, and the Niger delta. They demand a phase-out of coal, oil, and gas financing, an end to LNG project funding, increased investment in renewable energy, and restitution for the bank's role in fueling climate chaos.

The report warns that Nigeria's 'decade of gas' strategy, involving a planned USD 18.5bn investment in LNG infrastructure, risks creating stranded assets as global demand is forecast to fall by 2030. While Nigeria is currently the world's sixth largest LNG exporter, the report argues that prioritizing LNG may hinder economic diversification, increase fossil fuel subsidies, and expose the economy to external price fluctuations and climate-driven demand declines in Europe.

Earthjustice and the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) argue that the U.S. Department of Energy's updated environmental analysis for LNG exports must account for the higher methane emission rates and weaker regulatory enforcement in Mexico compared to the U.S. The authors highlight that 8.55 Bcf/d of planned export capacity through Mexico could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and disproportionately harm marginalized and Indigenous communities in Mexican states such as Sonora, Sinaloa, and Baja California.

The document argues that the U.S. Department of Energy's environmental analysis of LNG exports must account for the higher methane emission rates and weaker regulatory enforcement in Mexico compared to the U.S. It highlights that planned export capacity through Mexico totals 8.55 Bcf/d, which could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions. The authors also emphasize the disproportionate impact of these projects on marginalized and Indigenous communities in Mexico, noting high levels of industrial pollution and security risks for environmental defenders in states like Sonora and Sinaloa.

The document assesses the viability of Canada's planned LNG expansion, concluding that it is incompatible with 1.5°C global warming targets and economically precarious. It highlights that new facilities would increase domestic emissions and divert clean energy resources. Economically, the brief warns of a global supply glut by 2030, with Canadian projects struggling to compete against lower-cost producers in Qatar and the United States, thereby risking significant losses for taxpayers and investors.

The document assesses the viability of Canadian LNG expansion, concluding that it is incompatible with climate goals and economically precarious. It highlights that new facilities would increase domestic emissions and potentially strand assets due to a projected global supply glut and declining demand in advanced economies. The brief specifically notes that Canadian projects face higher production costs than competitors in Qatar and the United States, making them reliant on substantial public subsidies. It recommends a shift in investment toward green industries to avoid economic shocks and environmental damage.

The report evaluates Nigeria's strategy to expand LNG production to offset declining oil revenues, warning that such investments risk becoming stranded assets as global demand shifts toward clean energy after 2030. It highlights that while Nigeria is the world's sixth-largest LNG exporter, the sector has not significantly improved domestic energy access or reduced poverty, and continues to be linked to environmental degradation and social conflict in the Niger Delta.

Reclaim Finance highlights the contradiction between the values promoted by French banks through sports sponsorships and their continued financial support for fossil fuel expansion. The report details the funding provided by BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, and BPCE to oil and gas companies and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects between 2021 and 2024, asserting that such investments are incompatible with the Paris Agreement and IPCC guidelines.

The author contends that the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline would undermine China's energy security by increasing dependence on Russia, create unnecessary capital expenditure in an oversaturated market, and conflict with China's goal to peak carbon emissions by 2030.

The 2024 Banking on Climate Chaos report reveals that the 60 largest global banks committed $705.8 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2023, with $347.5 billion directed toward companies with active expansion plans. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the worst financier of fossil fuels, while Japanese megabanks like Mizuho and MUFG are prominent in methane gas (LNG) financing. The report highlights significant policy gaps, noting that many banks use intensity-based metrics rather than absolute emissions targets and that some North American banks have rolled back previous exclusions for coal and Arctic oil and gas. It argues that current 'net zero' targets often serve as loopholes for continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly in Southeast Asia.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and other health professionals are calling on the government of New Brunswick to ban hydraulic fracturing (fracking) due to significant risks to human health. Citing a range of scientific studies, the authors link fracking to adverse birth outcomes, increased mortality, and higher rates of cancer and respiratory diseases. They also warn that LNG infrastructure releases dangerous pollutants and contributes to climate change, which they identify as the leading global threat to human health.

The document tracks congressional hearings in 2024 across various House and Senate committees, covering topics such as energy security, climate risk, environmental regulations, and budget requests for agencies like the EPA and Department of Energy.

The report argues that Southeast Asia is at an energy crossroads, where planned gas infrastructure expansion could lock the region into economically volatile fuels and high capital costs, while renewable energy offers a cost-competitive and sustainable alternative. It highlights that in-development gas power and LNG projects would require over $220 billion in investment and could double the region's gas-fired capacity. The document details specific national strategies in Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, noting a trend of viewing gas as a 'transitional fuel'. It further critiques the role of international finance, particularly from Japan and South Korea, and the promotion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as potential delays to the energy transition. Conversely, it presents data showing that utility-scale solar and wind could meet nearly two-thirds of the projected increase in energy demand by 2030, provided that grid infrastructure and cross-border electricity trade, such as the ASEAN Power Grid, are developed.

The report finds that Chevron's strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy. Its projected 2030 production levels and LNG capacity exceed NZE requirements, while its diversification efforts are described as marginal and focused on unsustainable energies like bioenergy and fossil-fuel-based hydrogen.

The report concludes that ExxonMobil's strategy prioritizes fossil fuel expansion and shareholder returns over sustainable energy investments. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly exceed the limits required to align with a 1.5°C pathway. Furthermore, the report highlights a lack of scope 3 emissions targets and a diversification strategy that relies on unsustainable energies like blue hydrogen and biofuels.

The January 2024 pause on non-FTA LNG export authorizations affects 88.9 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of proposed capacity, representing one-quarter of all U.S. export capacity in development. The briefing argues that this pause curbs an overbuild of LNG infrastructure without harming Europe's energy security, as U.S. export capacity is still expected to increase by over 50% through 2026 from unaffected projects, while European gas demand is forecast to decline.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's Climate Plan for failing to commit to a non-expansion of fossil fuels, specifically noting LNG contracts extending beyond 2040. The analysis argues that ENGIE's reliance on technologies like hydrogen and CCUS, combined with insufficient renewable energy growth, risks locking the company into fossil infrastructure and missing net-zero targets before 2045.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's Climate Plan for failing to align with a 1.5°C trajectory, citing continued gas expansion, reliance on unproven technologies like CCUS and hydrogen, and a net-zero target date of 2045 that lags behind IEA recommendations.