Search Climate Insights Directory

The Canadian Climate Institute outlines a proposed framework to integrate oil and gas projects into the Sustainable Finance Action Council's (SFAC) climate investment taxonomy. To maintain scientific credibility and avoid 'greenwashing,' the report argues that only decarbonization projects within existing facilities should be eligible for the 'transition' label. It proposes a three-step eligibility process: general corporate requirements (net-zero targets), project-specific requirements (existing facility status and emission intensity alignment with 1.5°C pathways), and 'do no significant harm' criteria. A key proposal is a 50% threshold for downstream Scope 3 emissions to identify projects where demand-side risk is the primary transition risk. The report emphasizes that new oil and gas installations must be excluded to prevent carbon lock-in and align with global net-zero goals.

The document outlines a legal case brought against Shell in The Hague, asserting that the company is responsible for approximately 1.8% of historical human-caused CO2 emissions and currently contributes around 1% of global annual emissions. The claimants argue that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1950s but continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels, including shale gas and tar sands, thereby breaching its legal duty of care under the Dutch Civil Code. The summons demands that Shell reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, based on IPCC scenarios, claiming that Shell's own 2017 ambition of a 50% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 is inadequate.

The report contends that mega-regional trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework obstruct climate action by protecting fossil fuel interests and limiting the regulatory capacity of governments. It highlights the role of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in allowing corporations to sue governments over environmental protections. The document criticizes 'false solutions' like carbon trading and REDD+, advocating instead for a democratic economic approach based on local resources, agroecology, and corporate accountability.

The document criticizes the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists and petrostates on the UN's Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, specifically at INC-5. It highlights how oil-producing nations have blocked agreements to curtail plastic production as the industry seeks new markets for petroleum products. The text details the environmental and health impacts of plastic, including greenhouse gas emissions, flooding in Mumbai and Indonesia, and toxic pollution in Alberta, Canada. It calls for the 2025 INC-5.2 session to establish specific global reduction targets and ensure the inclusion of Indigenous and civil society voices.

The document details Canada's efforts to reform fossil fuel subsidies, specifically targeting tax deductions for oil, gas, and coal exploration and development. Since 2011, Canada has reformed seven policies, including reducing deduction rates for oil sands and mining expenses, driven partly by G20 commitments. While reforms between 1990 and 2007 saved over USD 900 million, the 2011-2022 reforms are expected to save approximately USD 260 million annually. However, the document notes a 'missed opportunity' with the introduction of a new LNG subsidy in 2015 and risks of backsliding through the federal purchase and expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The document demands that AXA cease providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, divest from unconventional hydrocarbons, and adopt a stricter definition of the Arctic region. It specifically calls for AXA to vote against Total's climate strategy, divest from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and implement an exclusion policy for soy traders linked to deforestation in the Cerrado.

The 'Scan de la Finance Fossile' evaluates 56 French financial institutions on their policies regarding high-risk oil and gas sectors. The analysis finds that fewer than half of these actors have policies covering any of the five most risky sectors, and existing policies often contain loopholes that allow continued financing of companies and infrastructure that facilitate fossil fuel expansion.

The methodology focuses on five key indicators to evaluate the climate credibility of European oil and gas majors: alignment of decarbonization targets with a 1.5°C carbon budget, reliance on offset mechanisms, asset expansion plans, trends in oil and gas production growth, and the forecasted energy mix for 2030. The analysis employs conservative hypotheses, assuming companies will meet their pledged targets and maintain current market shares in line with the IEA Net Zero scenario to establish a 'low-estimate' of cumulative emissions.

The document details the reactions of eleven major European banks to a report on fossil fuel asset exposure. It provides specific 2019 data on fossil assets and equity for each bank, calculating a risk ratio. While some banks like BNP Paribas, Société Générale, and BPCE provided detailed rebuttals or highlighted their transition policies and green financing, others, such as Deutsche Bank and Santander, declined to respond. The banks generally contest the report's methodology, arguing that it ignores portfolio selectivity, client transition strategies, and the broader solvency of banking groups.

The briefing identifies five 'non-conventional' oil and gas sectors that pose disproportionate risks to the 1.5°C warming limit and the environment. It details the high carbon intensity of oil sands and shale, the methane leakage associated with LNG and shale, and the ecological fragility of the Arctic and deepwater offshore environments. The document also highlights the financial instability of these sectors, citing high operational costs and the risk of stranded assets, and calls on French financial actors to adopt exit strategies.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), highlighting a lack of transparency regarding its CA$3.77m in investments and the absence of an ethical investment policy. SGR identifies financial links between CIM and fossil fuel firms Syncrude and Teck Resources, noting that Teck served as a 'Gold sponsor' for CIM's 2021 Convention with a donation of CA$20,000-30,000. While CIM partners with the Mining Association of Canada on the 'Towards Sustainable Mining' standard, SGR argues that CIM's ties to companies not aligned with 1.5C warming limits undermine its stated goal of 'Collaborating towards a sustainable future'.

The document consists of three tables identifying corporations and organisations involved in fossil fuels and arms. It details the roles of various oil, gas, and coal companies, their reserves rankings, and their environmental records. It also lists global arms manufacturers, their involvement in nuclear weapons programmes, and UK military entities, highlighting ethical concerns regarding recruitment and military strategy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for a 'count carbs and make carbs count' approach to transportation fuels, emphasizing the need for life cycle emissions analysis to distinguish between high-carbon fuels like liquid coal and low-carbon alternatives like cellulosic ethanol. The report highlights that while some biofuels can significantly reduce emissions, others may increase them depending on feedstock and land use. It promotes the adoption of Low Carbon Fuel Standards, citing California's model, to drive the market toward sustainable, low-carbon fuels and avoid the high emissions associated with liquid coal and tar sands.