Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance criticizes TotalEnergies' climate plan as incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit, noting that the company remains a leading developer of hydrocarbons. The statement highlights a growing opposition from investors, including Crédit Mutuel, and urges shareholders to reject the plan and oppose the reelection of directors to hold the company accountable for its continued fossil fuel expansion.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Crédit Agricole for continuing to support oil and gas expansion despite its claim to be a "green bank" and its commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050. The organization highlights that the bank provided $33 billion to the 100 largest fossil fuel developers since the Paris Agreement and remains the primary financial supporter of TotalEnergies, including a recent $8 billion revolving loan. Reclaim Finance calls on the bank to use its general assembly and upcoming strategic plan to end support for new fossil fuel projects and to vote against incompatible climate plans of oil majors through its subsidiary Amundi.

Reclaim Finance reports a decline in shareholder support for ambitious climate resolutions and a contradictory tendency for investors to approve 'pseudo-climate plans' that are incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit. The organization highlights specific voting trends at European oil and gas majors and calls for a shift toward voting against companies continuing fossil fuel development.

The report argues that while Europe has significant theoretical CO2 storage capacity, actual deployment is hindered by a funding gap, regulatory barriers to cross-border transport, and a lack of coordinated infrastructure. It recommends shifting from project-based funding to system-based approaches, implementing carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and establishing a market for low-carbon products. The authors call for a formal EU strategy to set milestone targets and coordinate the development of large-scale, open-access storage sites beyond the North Sea.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, with an overall average score of 13.1%. Most retailers rely on voluntary commitments and recyclability rather than waste prevention and reuse systems. While some UK retailers show higher performance, there is significant inconsistency in policies across international retail groups, and some companies are accused of greenwashing through ineffective recycling schemes that result in waste being exported and dumped in third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low transparency and ambition regarding plastic reduction, often relying on voluntary commitments and recycling-focused strategies rather than systemic reuse. An analysis of 74 retailers reveals an average total score of only 13.1%, with significant disparities in performance between different countries where the same retail chains operate. The document highlights tactics used by retailers to delay legislative progress, such as lobbying against deposit return systems (DRS), and criticizes 'greenwashing' practices, including the mislabeling of single-use plastics as reusable.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and prioritize recyclability over waste prevention. The analysis highlights a tendency toward 'greenwashing,' where retailers promote voluntary pledges or flawed collection schemes instead of systemic changes or supporting binding legislation.

The report reveals a significant gap between the public communications of European retailers and their actual performance in reducing plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some retailers like Aldi in the UK and Ireland score higher, the majority fail to provide basic data on their plastic footprints or support mandatory reuse targets. The analysis highlights a systemic preference for voluntary commitments and recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, while warning against 'greenwashing' practices such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey where they may be illegally burned.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in addressing the plastic crisis, with an average score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains score higher, most companies lack basic data on their plastic footprints and fail to implement systemic changes like reusable packaging. The analysis highlights a preference for voluntary commitments over binding regulations and warns against greenwashing practices, such as exporting flexible plastics to third countries like Turkey.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally exhibit low ambition and transparency regarding plastic pollution, with a global average score of only 13.1%. Most retailers prioritize recyclability over waste prevention and reuse, often relying on voluntary commitments and 'greenwashing' tactics rather than systemic changes. While some UK and Irish retailers score higher, there is significant inconsistency within international groups, and very few support binding government targets or comprehensive deposit return systems.

The report finds that European supermarkets generally perform poorly in managing plastic pollution, with a mean score of 13.1% across transparency, commitments, and policy support. While some UK and Irish chains like Aldi score higher, many others show minimal transparency and a preference for voluntary commitments over systemic changes like reuse and mandatory deposit systems. The analysis highlights instances of greenwashing, where plastic waste collected in stores was exported and illegally dumped in Turkey.

In Q1 2022, the cumulative GSS+ labelled debt market reached USD3tn, though quarterly issuance fell nearly 30% year-on-year to USD202.2bn due to market volatility and rising interest rates. While green and social bond volumes declined, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds saw growth. The period was marked by the first sovereign sustainability-linked bond from Chile and the first public sector sustainability-linked bond from the City of Helsingborg. The report also highlights the role of the IPCC WG3 report and the war in Ukraine in underscoring the urgency of the energy transition, while noting the emergence of transition bonds in Japan.

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 briefing concludes that ENI is not on track for the 1.5°C climate goal, as its cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are projected to exceed its allocated carbon budget by at least 13.6% by 2050. The analysis finds that ENI's short-to-medium term plans are incompatible with 1.5°C because the company continues to invest in oil and gas expansion, with production expected to grow until 2025. Furthermore, the report argues that ENI relies unsustainably on carbon offsets and Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) to meet its targets, while its capital expenditure remains heavily focused on fossil fuels despite claims of diversification.

The document argues that financial institutions must use their leverage to force soy traders to adopt strict no-deforestation commitments, including clear cut-off dates and full traceability, to mitigate climate and biodiversity risks.

The document argues for stronger international coordination to manage the environmental and social footprints of global supply chains, moving beyond voluntary commitments toward mandatory due diligence and standardized verification. It emphasizes the necessity of integrating 'decent work' into green economy policies to ensure a just transition, noting that environmental policies often lack social equity. Additionally, it addresses the dual nature of digitalization, which can enhance efficiency but also significantly increase energy consumption and emissions, calling for global governance on 'green artificial intelligence' and standardized environmental footprint methodologies.

As of February 2022, the EU planned a 24.9% increase in gas import capacity to 160.2 bcm/y, costing an estimated €26.4 billion. This includes 16 pipelines under construction and 62 proposed projects, alongside several LNG terminal expansions. The report states these plans conflict with EU gas reduction requirements, the IEA Net Zero by 2050 scenario, and IPCC warnings regarding methane emissions.

Reclaim Finance condemns TotalEnergies' decision to reject a shareholder resolution requesting Paris-aligned climate targets, arguing that the company's existing climate plan is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and that its justifications for the rejection are fallacious.

Reclaim Finance criticizes AXA and AXA IM for maintaining financial support for new fossil fuel projects despite their public commitment to a 1.5°C trajectory. The statement highlights that AXA continues to provide insurance for new oil and gas projects and that AXA IM has historically voted in favor of insufficient climate plans from oil majors like TotalEnergies, Shell, and BP.

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.