Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance assesses ENGIE's 2025 climate plan, finding it insufficient for a 1.5°C pathway. The analysis highlights that nearly half of ENGIE's capacity remains fossil gas-based, with no specific exit dates or asset-by-asset strategies. While renewable targets increased to 95 GW by 2030, the company continues gas expansion through new plants and LNG contracts. The briefing recommends that financial institutions demand a halt to gas infrastructure and that shareholders vote against the 'Say on Climate' proposal and the reappointment of CEO Catherine MacGregor.

The briefing criticizes ENGIE's 2025 climate plan for lacking a phase-out date for fossil gas and continuing expansion through new plants and long-term LNG contracts. While noting a slight increase in renewable energy targets to 95 GW by 2030, the author argues that ENGIE remains on a 'well below 2°C' trajectory rather than 1.5°C, citing a decarbonization goal of 2045 that contradicts IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenarios. The document also highlights that CAPEX for fossil technologies remains nearly stable between the 2024-2026 and 2025-2027 periods and warns that reliance on 'green gases' and carbon credits may perpetuate fossil systems.

Reclaim Finance calls on ENGIE shareholders to oppose the company's continued investment in fossil gas, arguing that its strategy is incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and its own 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The organization specifically highlights the planned gas power plant in Nijmegen, Netherlands, and long-term US shale gas contracts as evidence of misalignment with climate science. It advocates for voting against the re-election of directors and executive pay at the April 30 general meeting to force a strategic shift away from gas and uncertain technologies like CCUS and biomethane.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's continued investment in fossil gas is incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and its own 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The organization calls on shareholders to vote against key strategic resolutions to sanction the board for failing to align capital expenditure with decarbonization goals.

The report finds that BP's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over climate solutions, with 2023 investments in oil and gas being 11.6 times higher than those in low-carbon energy. BP has revised its 2030 oil and gas production targets upward and reduced its scope 3 decarbonization targets, leading to a projected 2030 production level 26% above NZE alignment. While BP aims for 10 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, it will still produce 23 times more energy from fossil fuels than from renewables. The report also highlights BP's continued development of gas power and reliance on bioenergy and hydrogen, which may not be sustainable.

The report finds that Eni's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to projected 2030 production levels that significantly exceed NZE requirements. While Eni is diversifying into renewables and bioenergy, these remain marginal compared to its fossil fuel core, and its decarbonization plan relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The report finds that Equinor's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, with 2023 investments in oil and gas being 6.2 times higher than those in renewables. The analysis indicates that Equinor's 2030 production targets will be 61% higher than levels required for NZE alignment, and the company continues to develop 'climate bombs' in the Barents Sea and Vaca Muerta. Furthermore, Equinor is expanding its gas power capacity by 80% by 2030 and lacks a specific target for scope 3 emissions, which constitute 96% of its total emissions.

Reclaim Finance finds that Shell's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to production levels and LNG capacities that significantly exceed NZE requirements by 2030. The report notes that Shell has reduced its carbon intensity targets and relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offsets, while its renewable energy growth remains marginal compared to its fossil fuel output.

The report claims that TotalEnergies is not transitioning to clean energy, instead planning to increase oil and gas production by 2-3% per year by 2028. It highlights that the global bond market is a critical funding source, providing 68% of the company's financing between 2016 and 2022. The document asserts that banks and investors use bonds to indirectly support projects like EACOP and Mozambique LNG while avoiding direct loan risks, and calls for an immediate end to the issuance of new bonds to align with 1.5°C warming limits.

The report concludes that TotalEnergies' strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over the energy transition. It finds that the company's 2030 production targets and LNG capacity expansions significantly overshoot NZE limits, while its renewable energy growth relies primarily on acquisitions rather than organic development. Furthermore, the report argues that TotalEnergies' diversification into gas power, blue hydrogen, and bioenergy is unsustainable and that its emissions targets rely heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.

The methodology focuses on indicators with a 2030 horizon to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. It evaluates companies across five main dimensions: current energy production (using a fossil fuel equivalence method to compare renewables and fossil fuels), cash-flow allocation (analyzing CAPEX for exploration versus low-carbon solutions), fossil fuel strategy (assessing upstream expansion and production overshoot relative to the IEA Net Zero Emissions scenario), diversification strategy (projecting 2030 energy mixes), and emission targets (calculating carbon intensity excess and reliance on CCUS and offsets). The analysis covers 6 European companies (BP, Eni, Equinor, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies), 2 US companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil), and 4 National Oil Companies (ADNOC, Petrobras, QatarEnergy, Saudi Aramco).

The report argues that while ENGIE has ambitious renewable energy targets, its overall climate plan is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory due to continued investments in fossil gas infrastructure, long-term LNG contracts for fracked US gas, and a reliance on immature technologies like CCUS and large-scale renewable gas. It highlights a lack of precise intermediate absolute emission targets and insufficient methane reporting as key governance failures.

Private equity firms have invested in 85% of operating and 73% of proposed US LNG terminals, contributing significantly to global emissions. The briefing highlights that six firms—PIMCO, Brookfield, KKR, Blackstone, York Capital Management, and Global Infrastructure Partners—account for over 75% of these financed emissions. It argues that LNG may be worse than coal when lifecycle methane emissions are considered and uses the Rio Grande LNG project as a case study of private equity acquiring assets after more accountable investors exit due to climate risks.

The analysis finds that while gas-fired power plants emit 58% less CO2 at the stack than coal, the lifecycle benefit is reduced to 24% when considering upstream emissions. This benefit varies wildly by production basin; gas from northeast Pennsylvania can significantly reduce GHG impacts, while gas from the Permian basin could potentially worsen them by 20% compared to coal. The report concludes that for natural gas to be compatible with net-zero goals, both aggressive upstream methane abatement and downstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) are required, noting that abated coal with CCS actually shows 37% lower emissions than abated gas with CCS due to the latter's persistent upstream methane and liquefaction emissions.

The analysis examines the complexities of assessing the climate impact of U.S. LNG exports, highlighting that lifecycle emissions vary significantly based on the source basin and the level of upstream and downstream mitigation. Using a case study of power generation in Vietnam, the author demonstrates that switching from coal to U.S. gas could either reduce greenhouse gas impacts by 40% or increase them by 20% depending on methane management. While U.S. EPA regulations and the Methane Emissions Reduction Program are expected to curb emissions, the document asserts that further policies and the application of carbon capture and storage are necessary for gas to remain viable in a climate-constrained world.

The author examines the tension in German foreign policy between corporate profit interests and a values-based rhetoric, specifically regarding its engagement with Africa. Historically, Germany's approach has been 'economistic,' focusing on raw material imports and machinery exports. The paper argues that current geopolitical shifts and the need for critical minerals provide an opportunity for Germany to move away from post-colonial models. It suggests that instead of merely securing cheap resources, Germany should support a pan-African industrial policy, the mobilization of domestic resources, and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to foster sustainable development and reduce Africa's dependence on raw material exports.

The document warns that Mozambique and Tanzania face significant risks of stranded gas infrastructure due to declining global markets, prices, and investor capital. It argues that both export-focused LNG projects and domestic gas-led industrialisation strategies are economically vulnerable, noting that using gas for power and industry is likely to remain an expensive option.

The report analyzes the energy strategy of the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) countries, finding that planned LNG and pipeline capacity will significantly exceed projected gas demand by 2030. It warns that this creates a risk of stranded assets and security vulnerabilities due to global price volatility. The author advocates for shifting investment from gas infrastructure to wind, solar, and grid interconnectors, noting that 3SI countries could reach a 67% renewable electricity share by 2030.

The Europe Gas Tracker Report 2024 finds that Europe is continuing a massive gas infrastructure buildout despite emerging from its energy crisis and seeing a decline in gas demand. With €84.1 billion in planned LNG terminals and pipelines, the report argues that the region is creating significant overcapacity and risking stranded assets. It further warns that these projects could increase annual emissions by up to 1.1 gigatonnes CO2e, undermining the EU's 'Fit for 55' goals. Additionally, the report characterizes the proposed 35,000 km hydrogen pipeline network as a 'red herring' that may serve to lock in methane gas infrastructure due to technical incompatibilities and the lack of green hydrogen production.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Engie for paying record dividends of 4.1 billion euros in 2023 while continuing to expand its fossil gas infrastructure, including LNG imports and new power plants in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Chile.