Search Climate Insights Directory

The document contends that the Canadian oil and gas industry has sufficient windfall profits to fund its own decarbonization and that public subsidies for the sector, particularly for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), create significant opportunity costs. It highlights that previous government supports have sometimes increased overall emissions by enabling higher production. The authors advocate for shifting public investment toward proven low-carbon technologies like wind, solar, and energy efficiency to meet Canada's 2030 climate targets.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5C requires a rapid decline in oil and gas production, with a minimum 65% reduction by 2050. It argues that developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with this goal and would likely create stranded assets. To replace fossil fuels, the world must significantly scale up wind and solar deployment; the annual investment gap for these technologies is estimated at USD 450 billion until 2030, a sum that could be covered by redirecting funds currently slated for new fossil fuel exploration (USD 570 billion annually). The report also examines the 'dash for gas' in Europe following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, concluding that existing infrastructure can meet medium-to-long-term demand if consumption is reduced. Finally, it highlights legal risks from investment treaties, which could cost governments up to USD 340 billion in compensation claims, and criticizes the lack of transparency and ambition in corporate net-zero targets.

The report examines the Ichthys LNG project in Australia, highlighting its high carbon intensity and the risks its expansion poses to climate targets and biodiversity. It identifies numerous global insurers that provided coverage for the project's initial construction and argues that continuing such support, particularly for the planned 2C expansion, contradicts the net-zero pledges of many of these firms.

The document warns against a surge of new LNG terminal projects in Europe triggered by the energy crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It argues these projects will not solve short-term energy shortages due to construction delays and market constraints, while risking long-term 'carbon lock-in' and increased methane emissions. The author specifically criticizes the opacity of the Le Havre floating terminal project and calls on private financial institutions, including GFANZ members, to implement exclusions for LNG infrastructure to align with 1.5°C warming targets.

The document argues that the procurement of 3,000 MW of gas power is irrational, unlawful, and environmentally harmful. It claims the process was 'tailor-made' for an existing Eskom project, lacked adequate public consultation, and ignores the availability of cheaper, cleaner renewable energy alternatives. The authors assert that gas is not a 'bridging fuel' due to high methane leakage and that such infrastructure risks becoming a stranded asset, thereby threatening South Africa's climate commitments and constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

The paper identifies a critical lack of robust climate risk data and analysis in Africa, which may lead to incorrect asset valuations and increased financial stability and sovereign risks. It proposes a six-category framework for climate risk information—data, analysis, disclosure and reporting, targets, risk management, and capacity-building—to help financial decision-makers close these gaps. While all four studied countries have initiatives for disclosure and reporting, South Africa shows the most comprehensive approach, covering five of the six categories. The author recommends that countries integrate financial sector transformation into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and expand climate risk mapping to include public financial institutions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa (FFSA), has requested information from Investec Group concerning a US$ 140 million loan provided by a syndicate of four banks to Karpowership. The letter highlights that Karpowership SA's proposed floating gas-to-power projects in Coega, Richards Bay, and Saldanha face significant opposition due to environmental impacts and the risk of prolonging fossil fuel reliance. FFSA argues that the projects would emit substantial methane, potentially totaling 80 to 142 million tonnes CO2e over 20 years, and may become stranded assets. The request asks Investec to clarify if the loan finances South African operations and how this aligns with its membership in the Net Zero Banking Alliance and its own net-zero carbon emission claims.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa (FFSA), is questioning Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. (Isbank) about a US$ 140 million loan provided to Karpowership in March 2020. The letter argues that the Karpowership SA projects—consisting of three vessels with a total capacity of 1,220 MW in Coega, Richards Bay, and Saldanha—pose significant environmental and social risks. Specifically, it highlights the refusal of environmental authorisations by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) due to "procedural irregularities" and the potential for the projects to emit "80 to 142 million tonnes CO2e of greenhouse gas" over 20 years. The authors contend that these projects prolong reliance on fossil fuels and may become "stranded assets" as renewable energy becomes cheaper. The letter asks Isbank to clarify if the loan was intended to finance these South African operations and how this aligns with its membership in the Net Zero Banking Alliance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa (FFSA), is questioning the Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB) about a US$ 140 million loan provided to Karpowership. The letter highlights environmental and legal concerns regarding Karpowership SA's projects in Coega, Richards Bay, and Saldanha, including the refusal of environmental authorisations by the DFFE and the potential for high methane emissions. FFSA seeks to clarify if MCB's financing ultimately supports these South African operations and how the bank assesses the associated material and climate risks.

The document is a formal request for information sent to Standard Chartered Bank by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of Fair Finance Southern Africa, seeking clarification on the bank's role in financing Karpowership SA's floating gas-to-power projects in South Africa.

Global Energy Monitor reports that 24,166 km of oil pipelines are in development worldwide, with an estimated cost of USD 75.4 billion. This expansion, led by the United States, India, China, and Russia, is projected to add approximately 30.1 million barrels per day of transmission capacity, potentially generating 4.61 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. The report argues that this buildout creates significant stranded asset risks and contradicts the IEA's Net Zero by 2050 scenario, which states that no new oil fields are necessary to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The document reports that despite China's climate goals, investment in high-carbon coal power and blast furnace steel capacity remains high. While renewable energy and electric arc furnace (EAF) investments are growing, the continued approval of coal plants and high-emission steel projects creates significant stranded asset risks. The report argues that power shortages in provinces like Sichuan are caused by rigid grid management and fuel costs rather than a lack of capacity, suggesting that further coal expansion is unnecessary if grid reforms are implemented.

The document finds that while China has seen record clean energy installations and a decline in coal-fired power generation, government permitting for new coal plants and investments in blast furnace capacity accelerated in early 2022. This trend creates a risk of significant stranded assets—estimated at $8.5 billion for power and $15-22 billion for steel—and complicates the economic and political transition to low-carbon energy. The report highlights that power shortages in provinces like Sichuan were driven by rigid grid management and high fuel prices rather than a lack of capacity, and recommends reforming grid operations and including the steel sector in the emissions trading system.

The report analyzes the financial exposure of Coal India Limited (CIL), Indian Railways (IR), and NTPC to the energy transition using a Green Economy Model (GEM). It compares a Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario with an Aspirational scenario aligned with net-zero goals to calculate 'cash flow at risk' (CFaR). The findings indicate significant long-term financial risks for all three entities, particularly in the 2030–2040 period. To mitigate these, the report proposes diversification into solar photovoltaics, battery storage, and operational reforms, while emphasizing the need for a just transition for coal-dependent communities.

The document analyzes the role of major US banks in financing the global coal industry, highlighting a gap between their public climate pledges and their actual financial activities. It argues that weak corporate financing policies allow funds to continue flowing to coal developers despite net-zero commitments.

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 asserts that the peak of fossil fuel demand marks the transition from a period of growth to one of systemic decline, characterized by falling volumes, prices, and profits. This shift leads to stranded assets, increased cost of capital, and corporate failures, leaving the sector vulnerable to financial market volatility and short-selling once immediate supply shocks subside.

The document asserts that Canada lacks the necessary infrastructure to provide immediate LNG supplies to the EU following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It highlights that while the EU seeks short-term alternatives, it is simultaneously accelerating its 'Fit for 55' and 'REPower' plans to reduce gas demand and achieve climate neutrality. With new Canadian projects taking at least three years to complete, the author concludes that such investments risk becoming stranded assets as European demand declines.

The document examines the tension between Africa's significant natural gas resources and the global shift toward net-zero emissions. It argues that while gas provides short-term revenue and energy security, long-term investments face high risks of becoming stranded assets due to declining global demand and the falling costs of renewable energy. The paper advocates for leveraging climate finance to scale up renewables and green hydrogen, which it presents as more sustainable pathways for economic diversification and energy access.

FSD Africa's Capital Markets team works to address financing gaps in Africa by developing enabling policies, market infrastructure, and innovative financial products. The report highlights the mobilization of approximately GBP 320 million through bond issuances, including pioneering green and gender bonds in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, and Morocco. It details the Africa Regulatory Support Programme (ARSP) and the African Local Currency Bond Fund (ALCB Fund) as key mechanisms for reducing currency risk and increasing private sector investment. Moving forward, FSD Africa is concentrating its efforts on five priority countries—Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, and Nigeria—with a strong emphasis on green capital markets and natural capital finance.