Search Climate Insights Directory

Algeria's economy is characterized by a heavy reliance on oil and gas, which account for nearly 30% of GDP and over 85% of exports. This dependence, combined with a closed, state-controlled economic model and a large informal sector—estimated to involve 57% of the population—has led to stagnating per capita income and vulnerability to global energy transitions. While the government has introduced a new hydrocarbon law to attract investment and shifted focus toward shale gas, the report argues that true growth requires restructuring the economy to protect non-hydrocarbon sectors and integrating the informal economy into the formal sector.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's climate plan for lacking transparency and containing inconsistencies, specifically regarding its reliance on shale gas and the absence of granular investment data. The organization advocates for a shareholder resolution to implement regular consultative votes on the plan's content and implementation to ensure alignment with climate goals.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's climate plan, noting it targets a 1.7 °C warming trajectory rather than 1.5 °C and lacks granular data on CAPEX and energy mix. The organization highlights contradictions, such as ENGIE's continued plans for 1.2 GW of new gas plants and long-term contracts for US shale gas, while calling for investor support of a resolution to implement 'Say on Climate' consultations.

The document criticizes ENGIE's coal phase-out strategy, claiming the company avoids genuine decarbonization by selling coal plants to third parties or converting them to fossil gas and solid biomass. It highlights specific asset sales in Europe, Brazil, and Morocco, and conversions in Chile, arguing these actions are not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory and risk ecological damage.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE for its 'false' coal exit strategy, which involves selling coal plants to third parties or converting them to biomass and fossil gas. The document highlights specific cases in Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, Morocco, and Chile, arguing that these actions avoid corporate responsibility for environmental damage and fail to align with a 1.5 °C warming trajectory.

The report exposes how major fashion brands continue to indirectly fund the Russian economy through their reliance on polyester produced by Reliance Industries and Hengli Group, both of which import Russian oil. It further highlights the industry's lack of transparency regarding synthetic supply chains and the risk of brands sourcing polyester made from coal or fracked gas.

The document warns against the proliferation of LNG import terminals in Europe, arguing they will not solve the immediate energy crisis and will create long-term fossil fuel dependency. It calls on private financial institutions to deny funding for these projects to prevent carbon lock-in and mitigate methane emissions.

The report contends that Europe's rapid expansion of LNG import capacity in response to the Russian gas crisis is disproportionate and environmentally damaging. It argues that new terminals will not address short-term energy needs due to long construction timelines, will create carbon lock-in, and increase methane emissions, particularly from US shale gas. The author asserts that existing capacity is sufficient to meet demand under net-zero scenarios and that funds should instead be diverted to renewable energy and energy efficiency to avoid worsening energy poverty and impacting the Global South.

The document examines how the Russia-Ukraine war has destabilized energy markets, undermining Russia's role as an 'energy superpower' and creating significant economic pressure on the Global South. It presents three scenarios: 'Stable high' prices, 'Persistent volatility', and 'Business as usual', analyzing how each affects national budgets, regional stability in the Middle East and Africa, and the global transition to renewable energy. The authors argue that while the crisis may incentivize some decarbonization, it also risks locking in fossil fuel production in the Global South and prioritizing immediate energy security over Paris Agreement goals.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Société Générale for continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion despite its 2050 net-zero commitment. The organization highlights loopholes in the bank's policies that allow continued support for conventional oil and gas, shale oil and gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, and coal mining through diversified companies.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's climate strategy is insufficient, citing a lack of short-term targets, a reliance on fossil gas, and a coal exit strategy based on asset sales rather than closures. The briefing recommends that investors vote against the 'Say on Climate' resolution and challenge the company on its gas and coal strategies.

The document rebuts the Fédération bancaire française's (FBF) assertions that French banks are prioritizing the climate transition. It argues that despite Net-Zero commitments, French banks provided over $350 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2021 and continue to fund companies expanding fossil fuel production, contrary to IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C pathway.

The document analyzes Argentina's challenges in implementing a 'just transition' toward a low-carbon economy, highlighting a critical lack of coordination between government agencies and a tension between climate commitments and the continued expansion of fossil fuels. It identifies the energy sector (51% of emissions) and the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector (39% of emissions) as the primary areas of impact. The report argues that current participatory processes are often 'testimonial' and that a unified national decarbonization plan is necessary to prevent further socio-economic inequalities, particularly for women, ethnic minorities, and small-scale producers.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Crédit Agricole for maintaining significant financial ties to the fossil fuel industry despite claiming to be a 'green bank'. The organization highlights that the bank provided $64 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2020 and remains a top supporter of TotalEnergies. The text specifically calls for the bank to expand its Arctic exclusion zones, exit non-conventional hydrocarbons by 2030, and align the investment policies of its asset manager, Amundi, with its climate goals.

The statement critiques the French financial sector's response to the climate crisis, highlighting a divide between institutions adopting strict exclusion policies for oil and gas expansion and those maintaining the status quo. It specifically condemns the French Ministry of Economy and Finance for avoiding strict regulatory frameworks and calls on major entities like AXA to stop insuring new fossil fuel projects.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the French financial center for continuing to fund the expansion of fossil fuels despite scientific warnings. While a few institutions like La Banque Postale, MAIF, and Ircantec have committed to exiting oil, gas, and unconventional hydrocarbons by 2030, the document claims most French banks and insurers, including AXA, remain supportive of the industry. It specifically highlights TotalEnergies' plans to increase gas production by 35% by 2030 and calls on the French government to implement a mandatory regulatory framework to end fossil fuel financing.

Reclaim Finance calls on AXA to cease providing insurance for the Brunsbüttel LNG terminal and other new fossil fuel projects. The organization argues that such infrastructure facilitates the import of shale gas, contradicts AXA's leadership in the Net Zero Insurance Alliance, and ignores calls from the French Ministry of Economy to exit non-conventional oil and gas sectors.

The report argues that Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. (ReconAfrica) shifted its public narrative from targeting unconventional shale resources to conventional ones after the Namibian government clarified that no fracking licenses had been granted. The authors claim that ReconAfrica removed references to 'shale' and 'unconventional' from its website, investor presentations, and personnel biographies while continuing to rely on resource estimates and a technical team specialized in unconventional plays, potentially violating Canadian securities laws on material disclosure.

The report analyzes the impact of three US federal tax subsidies—the expensing of intangible drilling costs (IDC), percentage depletion, and accelerated amortization of geological and geophysical (G&G) expenses—on the profitability of oil and gas projects from 1998 to 2019. Using a financial model of 2,450 fields, the authors find that these subsidies increased the expected net present value of projects by billions of dollars annually, often exceeding $20 billion in high-price years. The benefits were heavily concentrated in unconventional shale developments in regions such as the Permian Basin and Appalachia, and disproportionately benefited independent firms over integrated ones. While subsidies provided 'super normal' profits during high-price periods (2007-2014) without significantly altering drilling decisions, they were critical for the viability of marginal projects during price drops, such as in 2016 for oil and 2010-2012 for gas in Appalachia.

Reclaim Finance argues that Société Générale's pledge to cease financing new LNG export projects and shale gas extraction in North America is inadequate. The organization highlights that the bank remains involved in the Rio Grande LNG and Driftwood LNG projects and lacks a clear revenue threshold for excluding shale gas companies. The statement asserts that the bank's current strategy contradicts the IEA's net zero scenario and its own goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.