Search Climate Insights Directory

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 document highlights the dependency of the European wind industry on steel, noting that turbines consist of at least 70% steel. It argues that while wind energy is critical for the EU's energy transition, the steel production process remains highly carbon-intensive, emitting 1.85 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel in 2020. Using the example of Dirostahl in Remscheid, the brief illustrates the technical and financial barriers to switching from fossil gas to hydrogen or carbon capture and storage (CCS), specifically citing a potential price increase of 700 to 800 Euro per tonne of steel if switching to renewable hydrogen. It calls for the development of hydrogen and CO2 pipeline infrastructure and the implementation of policy tools like Carbon Contracts for Difference to maintain industrial competitiveness during the transition.

The report analyzes the EU's proposed CBAM, which will impose fees on carbon-intensive imports starting in 2026. It finds that the overall impact on China's exports will be moderate due to the limited number of covered sectors, primarily aluminum, iron, and steel. The authors recommend that China expand its national emissions trading system (CN ETS) to reduce exposure to fees and enhance competitiveness. For the EU, the report suggests dedicating CBAM revenues to technical assistance for developing countries and recognizing non-price-based decarbonization policies to reduce international tensions.

The briefing analyzes 1,047 energy policies adopted between January 2020 and November 2021, finding that most governments prioritize short-term poverty reduction over long-term inequality reduction. While 60% of policies could reduce poverty, only 11% are likely to decrease inequality. The authors identify 'win-win' policies (e.g., energy efficiency in social housing) and 'lose-lose' policies (e.g., fossil fuel extraction support), arguing that the social outcomes of energy transitions depend heavily on policy design, contextual factors, and complementary social protections.

The document argues that TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan is incomplete and incompatible with a 1.5°C pathway, citing a lack of short-term absolute Scope 3 targets and continued investment in oil and gas expansion. It recommends that investors vote against the management-sponsored 'Say on Climate' resolution and oppose the reappointment of specific Directors to signal disapproval of the company's fossil fuel strategy. The briefing also highlights legal and reputational risks associated with the EACOP project in East Africa, greenwashing lawsuits, and the company's continued assets in Russia.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's climate strategy is insufficient, citing a lack of short-term targets, a reliance on fossil gas, and a coal exit strategy based on asset sales rather than closures. The briefing recommends that investors vote against the 'Say on Climate' resolution and challenge the company on its gas and coal strategies.

The document details discussions within the TRAN committee on two key legislative files: the AFIR and RED II. For AFIR, members debated the inadequacy of previous charging station targets, the need for higher power outputs, and the role of LNG in heavy-duty transport. Regarding RED II, the committee discussed increasing the renewable energy share to 40% by 2030, the controversial inclusion of low-carbon fuels, and the prioritization of electrification for road transport versus synthetic fuels for aviation and maritime sectors.

The document rebuts the Fédération bancaire française's (FBF) assertions that French banks are prioritizing the climate transition. It argues that despite Net-Zero commitments, French banks provided over $350 billion to fossil fuels between 2016 and 2021 and continue to fund companies expanding fossil fuel production, contrary to IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C pathway.

In 2021, wind and solar generated over 10% of global electricity for the first time, but record-high electricity demand led to a record rise in coal power and the largest absolute increase in power sector CO2 emissions ever recorded.

In 2021, global electricity demand grew by 5.4%, the fastest rate since 2010. While solar and wind generation continued to rise, coal generation reached an all-time high, leading to a 7% increase in power sector CO2 emissions. This resulted in the first increase in global electricity carbon intensity since 2011, moving the sector further away from the IEA's 1.5 degree pathway.

The report finds that the world's 60 largest banks provided USD $4.6 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2021, with $742 billion in 2021 alone. It highlights a significant gap between banks' net-zero commitments and their actual lending and underwriting practices, particularly regarding companies expanding oil, gas, and coal production. The analysis identifies JPMorgan Chase as the world's worst banker of fossil fuels over this period. The report also details financing in high-impact subsectors, such as tar sands, Arctic oil and gas, and coal power, while emphasizing the human rights impacts on Indigenous and frontline communities.

The research paper analyzes the intersection of climate change and migration, challenging the narrative of inevitable mass migration from the Global South to the Global North. It highlights the lack of consensus on terminology, such as the contested use of 'climate refugees,' and notes that most climate-induced movement is internal. The author argues that voluntary, planned migration can serve as a positive adaptation strategy, benefiting migrants, origin communities, and destination areas. The document calls for coherent, multi-scalar governance and the integration of climate considerations into EU migration and development policies.

Reclaim Finance assesses TotalEnergies' 2022 climate plan as insufficient, noting that the company's emissions are projected to decrease by only 5.8% to 6.7% between 2015 and 2030. The analysis highlights a 'fossil-first' investment strategy where over 70% of CAPEX remains dedicated to oil and gas, and criticizes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) as fundamentally incompatible with climate goals. The document urges shareholders to vote against the management-sponsored climate resolution at the 2022 AGM.

Fortum/Uniper is criticized for having an inadequate coal exit strategy and increasing its dependence on gas, while continuing to receive significant financial support from major banks and investors, including French institutions like BNP Paribas and Société Générale.

Reclaim Finance has issued an open letter to Crédit Agricole's CEO, Philippe Brassac, demanding the bank stop financing fossil fuel companies active in Russia. The organization calls for the blacklisting of companies on the Urgewald Global Coal Exit List and Global Oil and Gas Exit List, specifically mentioning Gazprom. The letter further requests the suspension of support for companies like TotalEnergies, Uniper/Fortum, and Wintershall DEA until they exit Russian operations, arguing that fossil fuel dependence drives both climate change and international conflict.

Reclaim Finance urges Crédit Agricole to stop providing financial services to coal, oil, and gas companies active in Russia, specifically citing the bank's role as a main banker for Gazprom and its support for TotalEnergies. The organization argues that fossil fuel dependence fuels both international conflict and climate change, calling for a shift toward renewables and energy savings to achieve carbon neutrality.

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.

The document details a legal action where plaintiffs allege that Total failed to adequately assess human rights and environmental impacts of its Tilenga oil project, which involves oil extraction in Uganda and a pipeline to Tanzania. The case centers on whether Total's vigilance plan violated France's 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law, which requires companies to prevent environmental harm and human rights violations across their operations and subsidiaries. After the Nanterre Judicial Court and the Court of Appeal of Versailles declined jurisdiction, the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation.