Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) has failed to trigger a meaningful global coal exit due to significant loopholes in its declaration and a lack of monitoring. It highlights that many financial institution members continue to invest in coal, and co-chairs Canada and the UK are not leading by example, with Canada developing new coal mines. The document calls for a reform of the PPCA to align with climate science, requiring an immediate stop to new coal projects and a full sector exit by 2030 in OECD/European countries and 2040 globally.

The report finds that most major asset managers maintain a gap between long-term net-zero commitments and short-term actions, with significant exposure to coal remaining in passive investment strategies. Only a small fraction of assets are covered by robust coal exclusion criteria, and passive funds are almost entirely excluded from such policies, creating a 'time bomb' for the climate.

The report finds a significant gap between the long-term net-zero commitments of major asset managers and their actual investment practices, particularly regarding coal. Most analyzed managers lack robust coal exclusion policies, and 'passive' index investments—which represent nearly half of the assets under management in the sample—are largely exempt from climate criteria, leaving them highly exposed to the coal sector.

The document urges investors to vote against Total's fourteenth and sixth resolutions at its May 2021 AGM, claiming the company's climate strategy is insufficient. It highlights a lack of precise global scope 3 emission targets, planned increases in gas production, and continued investment in new oil projects in East Africa. The authors argue that Total's reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unrealistic and that its capital expenditure remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels, creating a risk of stranded assets.

Reclaim Finance and 19 NGOs argue that converting coal plants to solid biomass in Réunion would increase greenhouse gas emissions and threaten public health and biodiversity. They call on the AFD and private financiers to suspend funding for Albioma's project and instead support a sustainable energy transition aligned with the 2030 energy autonomy goal for overseas territories.

A coalition of environmental organizations argues that Albioma's plan to convert the Bois-Rouge and Le Gol power plants in Réunion from coal to solid biomass would increase greenhouse gas emissions, undermine energy autonomy goals for 2030, and threaten biodiversity through the import of wood pellets from the US and South Africa.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis, arguing instead that the bank is the largest European financier of the industry and the 4th largest globally. The organization contends that the bank's sectoral policies are ineffective against oil and gas majors and that its use of the PACTA methodology should not delay immediate action to halt sector expansion.

Reclaim Finance disputes BNP Paribas' claims that its 2020 fossil fuel financing was an exceptional response to the Covid-19 crisis or supported companies in transition. The organization highlights that BNP Paribas was the largest European and fourth largest global financier of fossil fuels in 2020, with $41 billion in funding, and argues that the bank's sector policies fail to restrict funding to oil and gas majors despite their lack of alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Reclaim Finance argues that the PAII Net-Zero Investment Framework is inadequate for achieving a 1.5°C limit because it lacks a mandatory fossil fuel phase-out trajectory and relies on weak engagement strategies. While the framework correctly prioritizes low/no overshoot 1.5°C pathways, it is criticized for allowing targets based on carbon intensity rather than absolute emissions and for failing to address anti-climate lobbying.

The report finds that the 60 largest global banks provided $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2020. Despite a 9% drop in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financing levels remained higher than in 2016. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the world's worst fossil fuel banker, with $317 billion provided over the five-year period. The analysis highlights a significant gap between banks' 'net zero by 2050' pledges and their continued funding of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in sectors like LNG, offshore oil and gas, and coal. The report also details the human rights and environmental impacts of specific projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and the Line 3 pipeline, and argues that current bank policies are insufficient to align with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.

Reclaim Finance critiques Total SE's climate claims, asserting that the company's scope 3 emission targets are vague and insufficient. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions for 2030 will significantly exceed 1.5°C alignment levels and that its carbon intensity reductions are far below the 90% decrease recommended by Carbone 4 to limit warming to 2°C.

Reclaim Finance challenges Total SE's claims regarding its carbon neutrality ambitions and Scope 3 emission targets. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions will overshoot the 1.5°C trajectory by 200MT by 2030 and that its reported reductions in Europe are misleading. Reclaim Finance further criticizes Total's carbon intensity calculations for excluding non-fuel products and intermediate stages, concluding that the company's strategy is inadequate for limiting global temperature rise.

Reclaim Finance assesses the March 2021 coal exclusion policy of UBS Asset Management, finding it insufficient due to the omission of the coal power sector and the exclusion of passively managed assets. The analysis highlights that UBS AM continues to support coal developers and companies below a 30% revenue threshold, such as Glencore and Adani, and lacks a defined global coal phase-out strategy aligned with IPCC-based deadlines.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Albioma's plan to convert the Bois-Rouge and Le Gol power plants on Réunion Island to 100% biomass. The organization argues that the project would increase greenhouse gas emissions, rely on unsustainable imports of wood pellets from the US or Southern Africa, and undermine the 2030 energy autonomy goal for French overseas territories. It calls on French financial institutions, including Crédit Agricole, BNP Paribas, and Société Générale, to push Albioma toward a genuine coal exit and the adoption of sustainable renewable energy instead of 'false solutions' like industrial biomass.

Reclaim Finance asserts that BlackRock's goal to align its portfolio with a net zero economy is contradicted by its $75 billion in holdings in 30 major tar sands production companies and $3.7 billion in key pipeline companies. The organization highlights that tar sands emissions are 3.2 to 4.5 times higher than conventional North American oil and calls for BlackRock to stop investing in companies deriving more than 5% of revenue or reserves from tar sands, and to exit those expanding the sector.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1.0 billion "Sustainability Linked" credit facility from five major banks, asserting that the company's ESG goals are insufficient and serve to mask the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. The author contends that Enbridge's net-zero and GHG intensity targets only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, representing less than 2% of the lifecycle emission intensity of oil sands. Furthermore, the document highlights that the Line 3 pipeline project in Minnesota, supported by such funding, increases GHG emissions and violates the treaty rights of the Anishinaabeg.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Enbridge for securing a $1 billion sustainability-linked credit facility while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels and the Line 3 pipeline. The organization contends that Enbridge's ESG goals are insufficient as they only cover scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the vast majority of the carbon footprint associated with oil sands transport. The document highlights that the Line 3 project in Minnesota violates indigenous rights and significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, calling for stricter financial regulations to prevent such greenwashing.

The document urges French financial regulators (ACPR and AMF) to implement stricter oversight of fossil fuel financing, combat greenwashing in ESG products, and integrate climate risks into prudential requirements and fiduciary duties to align the financial sector with a 1.5°C trajectory.

The Green Central Banking Scorecard evaluates G20 monetary and prudential authorities across four categories: Research and Advocacy, Monetary Policy, Financial Policy, and Leading by Example. The findings reveal a significant gap between rhetoric and action, with most institutions scoring high in research but failing to implement high-impact policies that restrict financial flows to fossil fuels. China, Brazil, and France are the top-ranked countries, though no G20 institution has implemented a 'high impact' policy as defined by the report's criteria.

Reclaim Finance argues that Engie's plan to exit coal is a 'non-annonce' because it prioritizes selling assets or converting them to gas and biomass instead of ensuring full closures. The organization warns that converting to gas or biomass fails to align with climate science and risks creating stranded assets. Furthermore, the document claims that selling plants does not reduce global CO2e emissions and that Engie's current 2°C target is insufficient to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.