Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that development finance institutions (DFIs) cannot achieve full alignment with the Paris Agreement if they only focus on direct project financing, as substantial portions of their finance are channeled through financial intermediaries. It proposes a phased alignment strategy combining subproject-level criteria for mitigation and adaptation with institutional-level requirements for climate governance and transparency.

Reclaim Finance argues that Japan's three megabanks (Mizuho, MUFG, and SMBC) maintain policies that allow continued support for the coal industry. While the banks have updated policies to restrict direct project financing for new coal plants 'in principle', these policies contain exceptions and do not apply to general corporate financing. Between October 2018 and October 2020, these banks provided $39bn, $36bn, and $32bn respectively to companies on the Global Coal Exit List. The document contrasts this with European peers like Crédit Agricole and notes increasing shareholder and activist pressure on the Japanese institutions to align with the Paris Agreement.

The Geological Society of London (GSL) has aligned its investment and gift acceptance policies and reports that its funds are not currently invested in coal, oil, or gas companies. While the GSL lacks a formal environmental policy, it aims to establish one by the end of 2022 and intends to pledge to reach Net Zero emissions by the end of 2021. The Society maintains patronage from Rio Tinto, citing the company's ongoing governance improvements, and is considering thresholds for disclosing corporate sponsorship in its 2021 Annual Accounts.

The briefing evaluates the virtual UN Climate Change subsidiary bodies sessions, noting that while substantive discussions occurred, significant divides between developed and developing nations persisted. Key areas of limited progress include the Paris Agreement Rulebook, carbon markets under Article 6, and the delivery of climate finance. The document highlights logistical hurdles of virtual negotiations and a perceived imbalance in the agenda, which sidelined critical issues like loss and damage and the global goal on adaptation, leaving substantial political and technical work for COP26 in Glasgow.

The document critiques proposals by conservative European Central Bank (ECB) members, including Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, to limit climate integration to TCFD-compliant disclosures and climate-risk ratings. It argues that these measures do not directly reduce support for polluters, ignore EU climate objectives, and fail as risk management tools because financial markets do not efficiently integrate such information. The author contends that the ECB must actively reduce its support for polluting activities, specifically by excluding fossil fuel companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement, to fulfill its mandates of price stability and support for general economic policies.

The document challenges the Bundesbank's reliance on 'market neutrality' and climate risk disclosure, asserting that the ECB's current asset purchase strategies create a 'carbon bias' that undermines EU climate goals and threatens price stability. The authors advocate for a 'precautionary approach' to climate risk, calling for the immediate decarbonization of ECB operations, specifically targeting fossil fuel assets.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's 2020 ESG Report fails to align the insurance market with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter highlights gaps in the 'Climate Targets', such as the lack of restrictions on oil and gas (outside tar sands and the Arctic) and the absence of scope 3 emissions targets. ClientEarth asserts that the Society of Lloyd's has a legal duty under PRA Solvency II rules and the 'prudent person principle' to manage climate risks, which include physical risks making assets uninsurable and transition risks leading to stranded assets. The document questions whether the Climate Targets are binding and calls for transparent public disclosure of managing agents' compliance.

A joint statement by Reclaim Finance, Urgewald, and BlackRock’s Big Problem criticizing BlackRock for voting in support of weak climate plans at Total and Shell during the 2021 European shareholder season, despite the firm's public rhetoric on climate risk.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Total's climate plan and the shareholders who supported it, arguing that the plan ignores IEA guidelines by continuing investment in new oil and gas projects. The author highlights a contradiction where investors, including AXA and BNP Paribas, support the plan despite their own carbon neutrality commitments, suggesting that short-term dividends are prioritized over the energy transition.

The document highlights that steelmaking is a highly emission-intensive process, contributing approximately 8% of global CO2 emissions annually. It argues that reducing these emissions is essential for achieving net-zero by 2050 and meeting Paris Agreement commitments, suggesting that G7 nations should lead international cooperation to establish the groundwork for a global industrial transition.

SGR acknowledges IOM3's move to a fund excluding arms and high-carbon fossil fuels but argues that the Institute maintains insufficient transparency and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel sector. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of all ties to companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of a formal responsible investment policy, and the reporting of the investment portfolio's carbon footprint.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

SGR acknowledges The Geological Society's recent updates to exclude arms and high-carbon emissions from its investment policy but argues that financial ties to fossil fuels persist through corporate patronage and sponsorship. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies not aligned with the 2C Paris goal, the adoption of a formal environmental policy, and the disclosure of corporate payments over 1,000. SGR cites other UK professional bodies that have divested from fossil fuels as benchmarks for the Society's expected progress.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institute of Physics (IOP) to end its financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies ongoing concerns regarding the IOP's lack of transparency in investments and its acceptance of sponsorship from arms companies. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies whose activities are not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of fossil fuel-free indexes, and the elimination of links to the military technology sector, citing examples of other professional bodies that have already divested.

The document argues that current national climate pledges are inadequate to limit warming to 1.5°C and calls for a transition away from fossil fuels rather than relying on net-zero promises. It emphasizes the need for rigorous rules for Article 6 carbon trading to prevent double-counting and protect human rights, criticizes the omission of loss and damage from the SB52 agenda, and highlights how the virtual format of the negotiations impairs the participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples.

Carbon Market Watch asserts that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must move beyond zero-sum offsetting to achieve an overall mitigation in global emissions (OMGE). The author critiques two proposed options—relying on market forces and using conservative baselines—as insufficient. Instead, the document advocates for the automatic partial cancellation of credits, arguing that this mechanism ensures net atmospheric benefits and can increase carbon market prices and project owner profits.

The NewClimate Institute and I4CE have developed an operationalization framework to help International Development Finance Club (IDFC) members align their financial flows with the Paris Agreement. Based on the six principles of the 2018 IDFC position paper, the framework provides guidance at strategic, operational, and country levels. It emphasizes that no single tool exists for alignment; instead, institutions must use a tailored combination of tools based on their specific mandates, strategies, and sectors. The guidance focuses on defining objectives, identifying key institutional changes, evaluating existing tools, and providing recommendations for full Paris-alignment.

The authors argue that global media coverage of climate change is insufficient and fails to convey the scale of the crisis. They call for newsrooms to prioritize climate stories, use plain language to describe the threat, and treat the situation with the same urgency as the Covid-19 pandemic. The text highlights that while some outlets fear the term 'climate emergency' suggests activism, the scientific consensus demands such framing to drive the political will necessary for decarbonization.

A statement by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) regarding a landmark legal victory against Shell, where a Dutch court ordered the company to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% within ten years to align with the Paris Agreement.