Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the feasibility of using Canadian LNG to replace Russian gas in the EU, concluding that the 3-to-5-year timeline for building new Canadian facilities is incompatible with the EU's immediate needs and its medium-term goal of phasing out gas by 2025-2027.

The Life After Coal campaign expresses support for rolling out renewable energy and battery storage from the 2019 IRP but strongly opposes the use of the energy crisis to introduce gas into the electricity mix. The campaign argues that gas is not a transitional fuel and poses risks of stranded assets and higher costs for consumers. It further criticises the potential for privatising new generation and the lack of specific support for rooftop solar for poor South Africans whose housing may not support such installations. The document also warns that Eskom's repurposing plans favour expensive gas turbines over low-cost solar power.

ClientEarth warns EMR Capital that financing the proposed Whitehaven coal mine in West Cumbria poses significant climate-related financial risks and may breach fiduciary duties to investors. The letter highlights the mine's incompatibility with the 1.5°C warming limit and the likelihood of it becoming a stranded asset due to declining demand for coking coal in the UK and EU steel industries. ClientEarth further asserts that the investment contradicts EMR Capital's status as a UN PRI signatory and its own ESG policy, potentially exposing the firm to legal challenges and accusations of greenwashing.

The statement evaluates a GFANZ report on the managed phaseout of high-emitting assets, agreeing with the necessity of early retirement of fossil fuel infrastructure to meet 1.5°C goals but warning against 'paper decarbonization' where assets are sold rather than shut down. It criticizes the report's dismissal of divestment and the suggestion of using carbon credits to finance retirements, which could negate emissions benefits.

Reclaim Finance has submitted comments to the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero (GFANZ) regarding its draft recommendations for net-zero transition plans. The organization argues that the current draft lacks sufficient emphasis on critical requirements, such as an immediate end to financing fossil fuel expansion and a commitment to a "fair share" of the 50% global emissions reduction needed by 2030. Reclaim Finance further suggests that GFANZ should implement stricter accountability measures, including the delisting of members who fail to adopt credible plans and ensuring that engagement with clients prevents the sale of high-emitting assets to other operators.

Reclaim Finance criticizes SCOR for inconsistencies between its investment strategies and its insurance underwriting, specifically noting that while its asset management subsidiary SCOR IP avoids oil and gas investments, the parent company continues to insure new gas fields and allows exceptions for oil projects.

The report highlights a disconnect between business-as-usual growth projections for animal agriculture and climate science, which predicts significant production losses and stranded assets. A survey of 201 investors reveals that while 82% view climate change as a material risk to meat and dairy investments, 55% believe investors are not sufficiently addressing these risks. The document emphasizes the critical need for methane reduction, noting that livestock is responsible for 32% of anthropogenic methane emissions, and calls for financial institutions to demand transparent reporting and support a transition toward alternative proteins.

ClientEarth argues that the HM Treasury's review of Solvency II fails to address climate risks and proposes several regulatory changes. Key recommendations include making investments in new fossil fuel exploration and development ineligible for the matching adjustment and requiring a 100% capital charge for such exposures to prevent stranded asset risks. The document also calls for mandatory, embedded transition plans for insurers, the adoption of 'double materiality' to manage the sector's impact on the environment, and formal Pillar 2 requirements for long-term climate scenario analysis. Additionally, it urges the government to impose express environmental duties and transparency requirements on the Society of Lloyd's to manage the climate impact of the Lloyd's market.

ClientEarth argues that the current UK listing regime allows carbon-intensive companies to list on the LSE despite business models incompatible with the Paris Agreement, creating systemic financial risk. The paper recommends that the FCA make demonstrable Paris-alignment a condition for listing, treat climate-exposed applications as 'high risk' for heightened scrutiny, and issue authoritative technical guidance to the market and sponsors.

The policy brief argues that Canada lacks a shared definition of 'inefficient fossil fuel subsidies,' which hinders its commitment to phase them out. It proposes a four-part assessment framework—alignment with climate commitments, support for a low-carbon economy, just transition consistency, and overall policy effectiveness—to ensure transparency and accountability in eliminating these subsidies.

The briefing argues that Canada lacks a clear definition of 'inefficient' fossil fuel subsidies, which hinders its commitment to phase them out. It proposes four criteria for evaluation: compliance with climate commitments, support for a low-emission economy, consistency with a just transition, and optimal policy achievement. The authors recommend adopting the WTO definition of subsidies and applying these criteria to both federal and provincial funding to ensure transparency and accountability.

The We Mean Business Coalition urges G7 leaders to implement policies that scale up renewable energy and phase out fossil fuels. Citing a report by Cambridge Econometrics, the author asserts that such a transition could save G7 households an average of $500 per person annually by 2030 and create millions of global jobs. The statement warns that investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure creates stranded assets and jeopardizes the 1.5C warming limit, calling instead for faster permitting of renewables and workforce reskilling.

The document argues that SMBC's involvement in the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments, exposing the bank and its directors to litigation, reputational damage, and stranded asset risks. It details specific human rights abuses and environmental threats associated with the pipeline and demands a full withdrawal from the project.

The document argues that SMBC's role as a financial advisor and lead arranger for the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments. It highlights risks including human rights abuses, biodiversity loss, and the potential for the pipeline to become a stranded asset in a net-zero transition. The authors warn that continuing this support could lead to greenwashing accusations, legal liability for directors under Japanese law, and severe reputational damage, especially as other global financial institutions withdraw their support.

The document argues that SMBC's reported role in the EACOP project exposes the group to reputational, financial, and legal liabilities, while contradicting its own environmental and human rights commitments.

The document details the significant ESG risks of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), including threats to biodiversity, human rights violations, and climate incompatibility. It highlights the financial and reputational risks for Japanese banks, particularly SMBC, and compares their policies with peers like Mizuho and MUFG.

The document critiques the 'net zero' framework, asserting that it relies on the scientifically flawed assumption that ongoing fossil fuel emissions can be offset by carbon removals. It specifically analyzes how initiatives like ART-TREES and the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) attempt to standardize and merge different types of carbon credits—avoided emissions, reduced emissions, and removals—into single, fungible assets to increase market scale. The report warns that this 'house of cards' encourages continued fossil fuel use, risks creating a 'subprime carbon' financial crisis through derivatives and speculation, and threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples through land grabbing for nature-based solutions.

The report critiques the 'net zero' framework and the expansion of carbon offset markets, asserting that they create a false equivalence between carbon removals and avoided emissions. It argues that these mechanisms serve as a 'house of cards' designed to protect stranded fossil fuel assets by providing a veneer of climate action while allowing ongoing emissions. The document specifically highlights the efforts of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART-TREES) to standardize and commodify different types of carbon credits to increase market volume. It concludes that the only viable path to limiting warming to 1.5°C is a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels, rather than reliance on speculative carbon removal technologies or flawed offsetting schemes.

The document critiques the 'fossil bet on the future,' claiming that carbon offsets and net-zero goals serve as a 'house of cards' to maintain fossil fuel dependence. It specifically targets the amalgamation of carbon capture, emission reductions, and avoided emissions into single, fungible credit units, arguing that such mechanisms do not actually reduce atmospheric CO2 and may lead to increased warming. The report highlights the role of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) and ART-TREES in standardizing these credits to facilitate financial speculation and the 're-floating' of stranded assets.

The report finds that the global steel industry is not on track to meet IEA Net-zero 2050 targets, as the shift from carbon-intensive BF-BOF to cleaner EAF technology is too slow. Current capacity under construction is more heavily weighted toward BF-BOF than the existing operating fleet. Asia, particularly China and India, is the primary hotspot for new BF-BOF capacity. This trend creates a significant stranded asset risk estimated between 345 and 518 billion USD. Additionally, the report highlights that accounting for coal mine methane could increase the sector's reported emissions footprint by 27%.