Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies a critical gap between current energy policies and the requirements for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Based on 26 'feasible' IPCC pathways that limit reliance on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies, the authors argue that no new oil and gas fields should be developed and that global production must drop by 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, wind and solar capacity additions must double current forecasts, requiring an annual investment of over USD 830 billion by 2030. The report highlights a USD 450 billion annual investment gap and calls for the redirection of capital away from fossil fuels, noting that current oil and gas industry spending on undeveloped fields is inconsistent with climate goals.

The report argues that governments are reacting to the energy crisis by prioritizing short-term fossil fuel security over long-term decarbonization, risking a 'gold rush' for new gas infrastructure and domestic production. While some progress in renewables and green hydrogen is noted, the authors highlight a prevalence of 'bad practices' such as fossil fuel subsidies, tax cuts for petrol, and the expansion of LNG facilities. The document provides a framework of 'do's and don'ts', urging governments to instead focus on energy efficiency, electrification, behavioral changes, and the reinvestment of fossil fuel windfall profits into clean energy to avoid stranded assets and irreversible warming.

The report contends that fossil gas cannot be considered a transition fuel due to significant methane leakage and the need for rapid decarbonisation by 2030. It argues that the EU's Complementary Delegated Act threatens the credibility of the EU Taxonomy by allowing fossil gas as a transitional activity. The document advocates for a rapid shift to low-carbon hydrogen, prioritised for hard-to-abate sectors, and warns against 'gas blending' as an inefficient decarbonisation strategy. It recommends the use of additionality requirements for electrolysers to prevent them from cannibalising renewable energy growth and suggests various financial mechanisms, including Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) and green public procurement, to mobilise investment. The report also emphasizes the need for a Just Transition to protect workers and low-income households from the regressive effects of carbon pricing.

The report contends that natural gas expansion in Africa contradicts the Paris Agreement and poses significant economic and environmental risks. It argues that renewable energy is more cost-effective and creates more sustainable employment than the fossil fuel industry. Through case studies of Egypt, Nigeria, and Senegal, the document demonstrates that shifting from gas-based power to high-renewable scenarios would increase job creation and, in the case of Egypt, significantly reduce premature deaths from air pollution. It concludes that developed nations must stop financing fossil fuels and increase climate finance to support Africa's transition to zero-emissions energy systems.

The document examines the dimensions of a just energy transition, moving beyond the focus on fossil fuel workers to address the impacts of clean energy deployment. It identifies five types of energy justice—distributive, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights across the entire clean energy supply chain. The briefing highlights risks associated with critical mineral extraction and land use, providing case studies from Colombia and Scandinavia. It concludes that international cooperation and robust regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure that the benefits and costs of the transition are shared equitably without exacerbating existing inequalities.

The paper examines the dimensions of a just and equitable energy transition, moving beyond the impacts on fossil fuel-dependent workers to analyze the risks associated with clean energy supply chains. It identifies five forms of justice—distributional, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan—and emphasizes the necessity of respecting human rights, particularly for Indigenous peoples, throughout the energy lifecycle. The authors highlight the risks of human rights violations in critical mineral extraction and the potential for 'green' projects to cause displacement. They advocate for community benefit-sharing, quality job creation, and international cooperation to ensure that the economic benefits of the transition do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

Reclaim Finance critiques Mark Carney's claims that financing for carbon-intensive industries is necessary and consistent with a 1.5°C transition. The organization argues that GFANZ acts as a 'greenwashing operation' due to its lack of enforcement and transparency, and asserts that new fossil fuel infrastructure is neither a viable solution to the energy crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine nor compatible with IEA pathways. It calls for a managed decline of fossil fuel production and the adoption of strict enforcement mechanisms for financial institutions committing to net zero.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's transition plan, noting that its coal exit is largely achieved through selling assets rather than closing them, and that the company is increasingly dependent on fossil gas. The briefing warns that ENGIE's reliance on hypothetical future technologies like green hydrogen and its continued gas expansion in several countries are incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit, calling for investor action at the company's General Meeting.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's climate strategy is inadequate because it relies on selling coal assets rather than shutting them down and maintains a heavy dependence on fossil gas. The briefing advises investors to vote against the company's "Say on Climate" resolution at the upcoming AGM, noting that ENGIE's targets align with a "well below 2°C" world rather than a 1.5°C pathway.

The statement criticizes the World Bank and IFC for supporting an unsustainable gas-based energy model in Bangladesh and calls for an immediate shift toward renewable energy to avoid stranded assets and align with the Paris Agreement.

The report analyzes the vulnerability of ASEAN economies to climate transition risks, highlighting a significant reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation. It finds that carbon-intensive sectors represent approximately 25% of corporate bond issuance in the region, with a substantial portion of loans and bonds facing refinancing risks by 2030. The authors argue that current industrial classification systems are inadequate for identifying these risks and recommend that ASEAN central banks develop comprehensive 'green' and 'brown' taxonomies to enhance climate risk disclosures and manage potential asset stranding.

The Europe Gas Tracker Report 2022 finds that the EU possesses substantial overcapacity for gas imports via pipelines and LNG terminals, making proposed new projects unnecessary. It argues that expanding this capacity is incompatible with the European Climate Law's 2030 emissions targets and the IEA's Net Zero by 2050 scenario. The report highlights that the EU's energy crisis is driven by global market tightness and supply shortages rather than a lack of import infrastructure. Furthermore, it critiques 'carbon-neutral' LNG claims as misleading due to methane emissions across the supply chain and warns that new gas assets risk becoming stranded.

The submission contends that ISDS mechanisms allow fossil fuel companies to shift the financial risk of stranded assets onto taxpayers and create a 'regulatory chill' that discourages governments from implementing emissions-reduction policies. It highlights that the fossil fuel industry is the most litigious sector in ISDS, accounting for nearly 20% of cases. The authors argue that the perceived benefits of investment agreements in attracting renewable energy are unproven, while the costs—including massive compensation awards—are high. To align investment law with the Paris Agreement, the document recommends the OECD explore multilateral termination of treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of 'climate carve-outs' to exempt climate-related measures from arbitration.

The submission contends that ISDS mechanisms allow foreign investors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to challenge climate policies and shift the financial risk of stranded assets onto taxpayers. It highlights a 'regulatory chill' effect where states may avoid implementing environmental rules to evade costly arbitration. The authors argue that the perceived benefits of investment treaties in attracting capital are unproven, while the costs—including massive compensation awards—are high. To resolve this, the document recommends that the OECD promote multilateral termination of treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of 'climate carve-outs' to ensure that measures aligned with the Paris Agreement cannot be interpreted as treaty breaches.

The submission argues that current international investment agreements and the ISDS system create a 'regulatory chill' that discourages states from implementing urgent climate policies. It highlights the risk of fossil fuel companies using ISDS to secure massive payouts for 'stranded assets' and recommends that the OECD support multilateral termination of old treaties, the removal of protections for carbon-intensive investments, and the creation of climate-related carve-outs.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors, arguing that the Board has breached its legal duties under the UK Companies Act by failing to properly prepare the company for the net zero transition. ClientEarth asserts that Shell's current climate strategy is insufficient, noting that its net zero target is not reflected in budgets and that its 'Energy Transition Strategy' focuses on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions reductions. The litigation seeks to compel the Board to align Shell's strategy with the Paris Agreement to protect the company's long-term commercial viability.

The document analyzes India's power sector financing between 2013 and 2019, noting that while utility-scale renewables dominate tracked commitments, continued investment in coal-fired power remains a significant barrier to Paris Agreement alignment. It highlights the risk of stranded assets in the thermal sector and recommends a shift toward green bonds, improved transmission infrastructure, and the accelerated decommissioning of old coal plants to meet 2030 climate targets.

The document analyzes power sector financing in Indonesia from 2015 to 2020, revealing a significant investment gap in renewables and a continued reliance on fossil fuels. While international finance for coal dropped sharply after 2018, domestic finance remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels. To meet the 2060 Net Zero target, Indonesia requires USD 16.1 billion in annual renewable energy investment, far exceeding the tracked average of USD 2.7 billion. The report highlights solar energy as having the largest investment gap and suggests leveraging blended finance, green sukuks, and the Energy Transition Mechanism to accelerate the transition.

The report argues that blending green hydrogen into existing natural gas infrastructure for buildings and power generation is inefficient, costly, and risky. It finds that electrification is a superior alternative for the building sector due to higher energy efficiency and lower costs. In the power sector, hydrogen-fired turbines face significant NOx pollution challenges and risk becoming stranded assets. The authors recommend that green hydrogen be reserved for 'hard-to-decarbonize' sectors like industrial feedstocks, aviation, and marine shipping, while urging regulators to maintain a high burden of proof for any ratepayer-funded hydrogen projects.

The report examines 21 proposed US LNG export terminals, finding that none reached a final investment decision (FID) in 2021 due to a lack of offtake contracts and project financing. It highlights that only three projects secured direct project finance totaling US$1.6 billion against an estimated total cost of US$244 billion. The document argues that these projects face stiff competition from lower-cost producers like Qatar, regulatory hurdles regarding environmental justice, and a global shift toward renewables. Furthermore, it notes that the combined lifecycle emissions of 19 proposed terminals would be 1 gigatonne of CO2 equivalent per year, contradicting the IEA's Net Zero by 2050 Scenario.