Search Climate Insights Directory

A group of climate and social justice organizations has issued a formal demand to TPG Capital to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter calls for the firm to develop a net-zero energy portfolio, disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions for energy holdings, and ensure a just transition for impacted workers and communities. Additionally, the signatories urge TPG Capital to publish its political spending policies and ensure that lobbying activities by the firm and its portfolio companies align with a 1.5 degree scenario from the Paris Agreement.

A group of climate and social justice organizations has issued a formal demand to Warburg Pincus to end its financing of fossil fuels and deforestation. The letter calls for the firm to disclose emissions for current and future energy holdings, shift new energy capital to renewables by 2025-2030, and ensure political contributions align with a 1.5 degree scenario. Additionally, the signatories demand a just transition program for workers and communities impacted by the firm's fossil fuel assets.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a proposed French decree on ESG reporting for financial investors, arguing it fails to align with the Paris Agreement, ignores fossil fuel financing, and lacks sanctions for non-compliance. The organization calls for mandatory transparency and penalties to force financial actors to abandon fossil fuel investments.

ClientEarth argues that HSBC faces significant financial, reputational, and legal risks by continuing to finance fossil fuels. The organization supports a shareholder resolution calling for a Paris-aligned strategy with short, medium, and long-term targets, specifically starting with coal. ClientEarth contends that HSBC's current net zero ambitions and transition financing pledges are insufficient without a concrete plan to reduce fossil fuel exposure, noting that the bank is Europe's second largest financier of fossil fuels.

The research uses content analysis to examine the integration of health within global agendas for climate change, sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, and urban transformation. It finds a lack of governance mechanisms and limited thematic synergies, suggesting that health systems strengthening and the concept of planetary health could improve the coherence of national policy implementation.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the main drivers of global warming, which has seen average global temperatures rise by about one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting environmental impacts, such as rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and increased frequency of extreme weather events, while highlighting the specific vulnerability of the United States to billion-dollar disasters. The text outlines mitigation and adaptation strategies, including the transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and discusses the role of international agreements like the Paris Agreement and the influence of climate finance in supporting these transitions.

The document serves as a glossary for individuals attending or following the COP, demystifying jargon related to climate policy, governance, and science. It defines key institutional bodies such as the UNFCCC, IPCC, and YOUNGO, as well as core policy mechanisms like the Paris Agreement, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the Paris Rulebook. Additionally, it clarifies scientific and financial terms including adaptation, mitigation, climate finance, and loss and damage (L&D).

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing oil, gas, and mining companies up to three years to develop 'net zero' plans, arguing this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights a contradiction where Aviva maintains investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore despite a 2030 coal exit pledge. Specifically, it points to Aviva's management of a Polish pension fund with over 250 million euros in coal sector investments, including increased holdings in Enea, PGE, and CEZ in 2020, as well as investments in PGNiG.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva Investors for allowing fossil fuel companies up to three years to develop net zero plans, arguing that this delays urgent divestment. The statement highlights contradictions in Aviva's policy, specifically noting continued investments in coal developers like BHP Group and Glencore, and significant holdings in Polish coal and gas companies such as PGE and PGNiG through third-party managed assets.

ClientEarth's review of 250 large UK-listed companies reveals a systemic failure to provide material climate-related financial information, with only 4% including such factors in financial accounts and 4% of auditors explicitly addressing them. While narrative risk disclosures are improving, they are often boilerplate. The report recommends mandatory TCFD-aligned reporting, stronger regulatory enforcement to prevent 'greenwash', and increased investor stewardship.

The report addresses the lack of granular, standardized data on cooling finance, which currently relies on equipment sales estimates or fragmented sectoral data. To resolve this, the authors propose a 'Cooling Investment Tracking Framework' using a six-letter code-tagging system. This system evaluates four dimensions: cooling orientation (the extent to which cooling is the project's purpose), climate orientation (whether the solution is efficient, clean, or sustainable), solution type (categorized into technology, services, policy, and finance), and purpose (mapped to OECD DAC codes). The framework aims to help stakeholders quantify financial commitments, monitor the phase-out of high-GWP refrigerants, and inform national cooling action plans. The authors recommend piloting the framework with development finance institutions to create a universal standard for tracking sustainable cooling investments.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have increased average global temperatures by approximately one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and more severe extreme weather events. The text outlines strategies for mitigation and adaptation, discusses the role of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and describes the efforts of the United States, corporations, and the United Nations to address the crisis.

The report argues that ENGIE's transition strategy is not aligned with the Paris Agreement due to the lack of confirmed shutdown dates for 70% of its remaining coal fleet and a reliance on converting coal plants to fossil gas and biomass. While ENGIE aims for renewables to provide 58% of its power by 2030, the document identifies significant financial and regulatory risks associated with its gas and biomass assets, including the potential for stranded assets and high methane emissions from shale gas procurement.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the expansion of carbon markets, distinguishing between 'real zero' (immediate emission cuts) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that fossil fuel emissions cannot be physically offset by natural ecosystems and warns that the drive for 'nature-based solutions' leads to land grabbing and the financialization of nature. The report calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a just, community-led energy and food system.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and the use of carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'real zero' (actual emission elimination) and 'false zero' (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon markets and 'nature-based solutions' are used as distractions by the fossil fuel industry and financial sectors to maintain the status quo, which risks further land grabbing and the violation of Indigenous and local community rights. The report emphasizes that fossil carbon cannot be simply absorbed by the biosphere and calls for a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels and a transition to a climate-just economy.

The document critiques the concept of 'net zero' and carbon offsetting, distinguishing between 'true zero' (rapidly eliminating fossil fuel emissions) and 'false zero' (relying on offsets). It asserts that fossil carbon cannot be absorbed by natural cycles and that the demand for offsets leads to the financialization of nature and the dispossession of indigenous and local communities.

The document critiques the concept of "net zero," distinguishing between "real zero" (immediate deep emission cuts) and "fake zero" (reliance on offsets). It asserts that carbon offsets do not reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the land required to meet corporate offset demands would be ecologically and socially catastrophic. The report specifically highlights the role of the financial sector and fossil fuel majors in rehabilitating voluntary carbon markets to maintain business-as-usual operations.

The document argues that Export Development Canada (EDC) provides disproportionately high levels of support for oil and gas compared to clean technology, often lacking transparency in its transactions. It highlights that EDC's domestic mandate expansion, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has facilitated continued fossil fuel financing. The brief recommends that EDC phase out public finance for fossil fuels, set clear climate action targets, and implement 'green strings' (climate-related conditionalities) to ensure economic recovery is aligned with the Paris Agreement and Canada's 2050 net-zero goal.

The Canadian government provided at least CAD 1.91 billion in federal fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, representing a jump of over 200% from 2019 levels. This increase was primarily driven by COVID-19 recovery measures, specifically funding for orphan and abandoned well reclamation and support for Newfoundland's offshore oil industry. The report argues that these subsidies are inconsistent with Canada's net-zero emissions by 2050 target and G20 commitments to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It highlights significant data gaps regarding tax-related subsidies and public finance provided through Export Development Canada (EDC). The author recommends a transparent roadmap for subsidy phase-out by 2025, the alignment of EDC policies with climate goals, and the inclusion of subsidy reform in Canada's next Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).