Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds a significant imbalance in energy financing among the 65 largest global banks, with a ratio of 0.42:1 in favor of fossil fuels over sustainable power supply between 2021 and 2024. This is far below the 6:1 ratio by 2030 recommended by the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario. While European banks show slightly better ratios, financing for sustainable power remains heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving emerging markets underfunded. The report also criticizes banks for using 'blurry' targets and problematic technologies like CCUS and bioenergy to inflate their green credentials.

Reclaim Finance critiques the ACPR's climate pilot exercise, warning that the exclusion of solvency requirements, the use of a dynamic balance sheet, and the focus on extreme weather events over chronic risks may artificially reduce measured climate risks. The organization recommends including the year 2030 in projections, expanding the geographic scope beyond France, Europe, and the US, and conducting a more granular analysis of the fossil fuel sector.

The document clarifies the methodology used to identify "fossil assets" in bank balance sheets, noting that the scope is conservative and may underestimate risks due to bank opacity. It argues that while a significant loss in fossil asset value could severely impact bank equity, immediate bankruptcy is not certain as losses may be gradual and banks have other equity reserves. The text distinguishes its approach from the ACPR and AMF pilot exercise by focusing on stranded assets rather than optimistic climate scenarios. Finally, it proposes a "fossil bank"—a "bad bank" funded by the ECB—to repurchase fossil assets at a discount to ensure financial stability and a just transition without using public funds.

The fact sheet argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors act as 'greenwashing tools' by underestimating renewable energy, relying on unlikely negative emissions technologies, and omitting significant portions of global greenhouse gas emissions. It asserts that these scenarios often lead to warming exceeding 1.5°C and calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

The document argues that many climate scenarios used by financial actors and large companies serve as tools for greenwashing by underestimating renewable energy and relying on improbable negative emissions to justify continued fossil fuel investment.

The document identifies 39 French financial institutions committed to phasing out coal by 2030 in OECD and European countries and by 2040 elsewhere. It further specifies that 25 of these actors require their clients to adopt exit plans, with 15 setting a deadline of late 2021 for such plans.

Two years after the Paris financial center committed to coal exit strategies, Reclaim Finance finds a mixed record. While 24 of 54 analyzed actors have robust policies, others lack them entirely or have significant gaps, such as failing to exclude coal developers or lacking clear exit dates. Major banks like BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Crédit Agricole, and Natixis remain under scrutiny for continuing to support coal companies without credible transition plans.

The methodology focuses on five key indicators to evaluate the climate credibility of European oil and gas majors: alignment of decarbonization targets with a 1.5°C carbon budget, reliance on offset mechanisms, asset expansion plans, trends in oil and gas production growth, and the forecasted energy mix for 2030. The analysis employs conservative hypotheses, assuming companies will meet their pledged targets and maintain current market shares in line with the IEA Net Zero scenario to establish a 'low-estimate' of cumulative emissions.

The document outlines the environmental and economic dangers of expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure. It highlights that the LNG process is energy-intensive and prone to methane leaks, with US-sourced LNG potentially having a carbon footprint 28% higher than coal. Financially, the report warns of severe overcapacity in Europe, where import capacity may reach 400 billion m3 by 2030 despite a projected demand of only 150-190 billion m3, leading to a high risk of stranded assets in countries such as France, Germany, and Italy. It concludes that conversion to hydrogen or biomethane is largely technically and economically unfeasible, urging financial actors to cease all support for gas expansion.

A coalition of climate and accountability organizations argues that Total's climate strategy is insufficient to meet the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. They highlight that Total's 2030 emissions reduction targets cover only a small fraction of its total emissions and that the company plans to increase energy production to 4Mboe/d by 2030, with gas production potentially increasing by 30%. The authors note that 80% of Total's capex remains assigned to oil and gas, creating a risk of stranded assets. The document specifically criticizes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Tilenga projects and calls on shareholders to vote against the company's climate resolutions and the leadership of CEO Patrick Pouyanné at the May 28, 2021 Annual General Meeting.

The report challenges the narrative of fossil gas as a low-carbon transition fuel, detailing its high methane leakage rates and the severe ecological and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. It highlights that methane's high warming potential can make gas more harmful to the climate than coal if leakage exceeds 4%. Additionally, the document outlines the health consequences of gas combustion, including respiratory illnesses and millions of annual deaths globally, and calls for financial institutions to cease all support for gas expansion.

The report details the environmental and health risks of fossil gas, highlighting that methane leaks can make gas more harmful to the climate than coal. It specifically critiques shale gas for its high water consumption, chemical contamination, and carcinogenic emissions, while noting that gas combustion contributes to millions of deaths globally through air pollution. Reclaim Finance recommends that financial institutions cease all support for fossil gas expansion.

The document outlines the high energy consumption and methane leakage associated with the LNG value chain, highlighting that US-produced LNG can have a carbon footprint 28% higher than coal. It warns of significant financial risks, including the potential for LNG infrastructure to become stranded assets due to overcapacity, particularly in Europe where utilization rates are forecast to drop to 36% by 2030.

The briefing asserts that new gas exploration, production, and LNG export terminals are incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It highlights that existing fossil fuel infrastructure already exceeds the remaining carbon budget for low-overshoot pathways and warns of LNG overcapacity. Consequently, it calls on financial institutions to stop presenting fossil gas as a transitional energy and to immediately cease financial services supporting fossil gas expansion.

This document is a rebuttal by Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) to an article and subsequent response by Charles C. Mann in The Atlantic. Lovins argues that Mann ignores the role of efficiency and technological innovation in reducing oil demand and misrepresents the reliability and economic viability of renewable energy, specifically in Germany.

This editorial by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute argues that the perceived inevitability of increased fossil fuel consumption is a flawed assumption. By applying engineering-economic analysis, the authors suggest that a 'least-cost energy strategy' focusing on energy efficiency and renewables can reduce fossil fuel reliance to nearly zero within half a century, effectively mitigating the CO2 problem through economic rationality rather than solely through climatic cost-benefit analyses.

The report advocates for a 'solve for pattern' approach to global crises, using energy efficiency and renewable technologies as a model for broader resource management. It argues that the U.S. and other nations can achieve significant reductions in oil and electricity use through technical innovations like 'hypercars' and efficient lighting, which are often cheaper than expanding supply. The authors contend that these efficiencies can simultaneously improve economic health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, slow nuclear proliferation by removing the need for civilian nuclear power, and enhance global security by reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) proposes a comprehensive federal strategy to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil use by approximately 50% by 2020. The framework prioritizes reducing energy demand through efficiency in buildings, transport, and industry before substituting supply with renewables and biofuels. Key recommendations include implementing 'feebates' for vehicles, establishing a 'Smart Grid', and creating a national 'energy corps' for workforce training. RMI argues that climate protection is profitable and that the U.S. should move toward a system where all energy production and saving methods compete fairly without distorting subsidies.

The report argues that utilities often undervalue renewable resources by failing to account for their contribution to overall system reliability and the benefits of geographic diversification. It proposes using financial portfolio theory to minimize variability through dispersed siting and suggests that the costs of integrating intermittent renewables are relatively low compared to the risks of fossil fuel price volatility. The authors conclude that failure to apply these valuation techniques leads to unnecessary investment in conventional generation capacity.

The document is a response by Amory and Judy Lovins to a Wall Street Journal article regarding their home's energy efficiency. The authors argue that their original 1982–84 house achieved 90% electricity savings and 99% heating energy savings with a minimal cost premium of $6,000, which was recovered in ten months. They distinguish this from a later 2007–09 renovation that was more costly because it focused on 'bleeding-edge' technology and aesthetics rather than basic efficiency. The authors promote 'integrative design'—where high insulation levels eliminate the need for expensive heating systems—as a method to reduce energy use by over 80% at comparable or lower capital costs. They cite examples such as 'passive houses' in Europe and specific projects in Bangkok and California to demonstrate that these economics apply across different climates and scales.