Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines eight key demands from Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France addressed to BNP Paribas. It calls for the bank to strictly apply its coal exit policy, cease all support for hydrocarbon development, exit high-risk sectors like the Arctic and unconventional oil and gas by 2030, and vote against Total's climate strategy. Additionally, it urges the bank to withdraw from gas projects in Mozambique, strengthen exclusions on soy-related deforestation in the Cerrado, and formalize a policy to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The document outlines eight key demands for Crédit Agricole to align its financial activities with the 1.5°C climate goal. These include ending support for coal projects and companies like Glencore and PGE, divesting from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and ceasing all financing for hydrocarbon development, specifically unconventional oil and gas and projects in the Arctic and Mozambique. It also calls for the bank to vote against Total's climate strategy and adopt a zero-deforestation policy for imported soy, particularly concerning the Cerrado region.

The document critiques the French government's request for financial actors to adopt carbon intensity trajectories by March 2022, noting it avoids previous failed demands regarding fossil fuel exits. It specifically analyzes Crédit Agricole's new commitments, arguing that its exclusions for Arctic projects are poorly defined and its 20% portfolio exposure reduction by 2025 is limited because it excludes equity and bond issuances.

The document consists of formal inquiries directed at Natixis regarding its climate and environmental policies. The authors challenge the bank's delayed implementation of coal exclusions, its continued support for fossil fuel expansion, and its involvement in high-risk sectors such as Arctic drilling, shale gas, and Amazonian oil extraction. It specifically calls for the bank to oppose Total's climate strategy and cease financing for projects like EACOP and Tilenga, as well as gas developments in Mozambique. Additionally, it demands a 'zero deforestation' policy for imported soy and a detailed plan to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

The document consists of ten sets of questions and demands addressed to Société Générale, urging the bank to align its financing with the 1.5°C climate goal. The authors criticize the bank's continued support for coal (specifically mentioning Glencore and EPH), unconventional oil and gas, and projects in sensitive areas like the Arctic, the Amazon, and Mozambique. They also call for a zero-deforestation policy regarding imported soy and for the bank to vote against Total's climate strategy.

The statement argues that French financial actors are failing to translate their Paris Agreement commitments into concrete action. It highlights that since COP21, financial actors have provided $1,600 billion in funding to fossil fuel companies, with French banks and investors contributing $126 billion in financing and $22 billion in investments. The text specifically calls out the Banque de France for not having adopted a coal exit policy or restrictions on other fossil fuels, despite the governor's public calls for climate action. It also notes that ten other French actors, including Covéa and SCOR, have insufficient policies, and contrasts the French government's plan to fund fossil fuel projects until 2035 with the UK's goal to end such funding by COP26 in November 2021.

Reclaim Finance criticizes BlackRock's 2021 Stewardship Expectations, arguing that the asset manager's commitment to support more climate-related shareholder votes is undermined by a lack of robust engagement strategies. The document highlights that BlackRock supported only 11% of climate resolutions in 2020 and continues to invest in companies expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, including 240 companies planning new coal projects. Reclaim Finance asserts that effective engagement requires public, time-bound demands for 1.5ºC alignment and absolute emission reductions by 2030, alongside the use of divestment for non-transitioning companies.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the third technical report from the European Commission's Joint Research Committee (JRC) regarding the EU Ecolabel for Retail Financial Products. The organization argues that new categories for companies 'investing in transition' or 'in green growth' allow polluting activities, including fossil fuels, to remain eligible for the label. Furthermore, Reclaim Finance highlights a reduction in the required percentage of 'green' activities for equity products and a provision allowing banks to use up to 30% of labeled savings accounts for loans to companies investing in polluting activities.

The document contends that replacing coal with biomass is not a viable climate solution, as solid biomass can emit 3% to 50% more CO2 per unit of energy than coal. It highlights that biomass production drives deforestation and ecosystem loss, particularly in Europe and North America, and releases harmful air pollutants. For financial institutions, the document warns of reputational, financial, and regulatory risks, noting that biomass is more expensive than wind or solar and heavily dependent on subsidies.

The document advocates for a shift in investor strategy from traditional shareholder engagement to the use of bond markets as a strategic lever for climate action. It highlights that corporate bonds represent approximately 41 trillion USD and provide a critical point of influence during capital rounds. The author specifically calls for investors to refuse bonds from companies developing new fossil fuel projects and identifies the Samcheok coal plant project in South Korea as a key test case for this approach.

The document advocates for the use of the corporate bond market as a strategic lever for climate action, arguing that it offers more direct influence over companies than equity-based engagement. It specifically calls for investors to stop purchasing bonds from companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement and highlights the Samcheok coal plant project in South Korea as a critical test case for investor climate consistency.

Reclaim Finance critiques the third technical report for the EU Ecolabel for financial products, stating that new 'transition' and 'green growth' categories allow companies to continue investing in polluting activities without requiring Paris-aligned phase-out plans. The organization argues that the report's loosened restrictions on deposit accounts and reduced 'greenness' thresholds for UCITS equity funds undermine the label's ambition and could mislead savers.

The 2020 Scorecard reveals a growing trend of insurers retreating from coal, with at least 23 companies ending or limiting cover for coal projects. While coal insurance is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain, the report finds that the industry has largely failed to take comprehensive action on oil and gas. European and Australian insurers are leading the transition, whereas companies in the U.S., Japan, and the Lloyd's market are identified as laggards. The report also highlights a significant increase in coal divestment, with 65 insurers now having policies covering over $12 trillion in assets.

The report finds that the financial sector is the largest block opposing an EU taxonomy for polluting activities, with 74 institutions representing 45% of opponents. It highlights a contradiction where many financial players oppose the taxonomy while adhering to international climate initiatives. The document argues that professional federations are often used by influential members to push anti-climate agendas, and that opponents use misleading arguments to protect high-emission activities, particularly in the energy and steel sectors.

The European Union's 'Benchmark Regulation' introduces the Paris Aligned Benchmark (PAB) and Climate Transition Benchmark (CTB) to standardize 'green' financial indices. However, Reclaim Finance asserts these are insufficient because they lack requirements for absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions and do not guarantee the exclusion of companies developing new fossil fuel projects. The document highlights a gap in passive asset management, noting that firms like Lyxor AM and BlackRock often exclude coal from active assets but not from passive index funds. To achieve real alignment, the author suggests adding absolute emission reduction targets, stricter exclusion thresholds, and a dynamic phase-out of fossil fuels to the PAB framework.

The European Union's 'benchmarks regulation' introduces the Paris Aligned Benchmark (PAB) and the Climate Transition Benchmark (CTB) to guide green financial indices. However, the author contends these are inadequate because they lack requirements for absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions and do not guarantee the exclusion of companies developing new fossil fuel projects. The document calls for the development of indices that include absolute emission reduction targets, a ban on new fossil fuel projects, reinforced exclusion thresholds, and a dynamic fossil fuel phase-out approach.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Net-zero Asset Owner Alliance's (NZAOA) target setting protocol contains loopholes regarding divestment strategies, the use of unrealistic climate scenarios, the lack of mandatory absolute reduction targets, and the absence of measures against anti-climate lobbying.

The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) is criticized for a loophole in its thermal coal position paper that permits the completion of plants under active construction, potentially enabling 189.8 GW of new capacity. This contradicts the alliance's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and the IPCC's warnings regarding the 1.5°C warming limit. The document highlights the Turow lignite expansion in Poland as an example of a problematic project under construction and warns of significant stranded asset risks, noting that up to 72% of global thermal coal capacity could be loss-making by 2040.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Trucost list used by the Fédération bancaire française (FBF) fails to capture the full coal value chain and omits major global coal actors, including large Chinese and Russian firms. The analysis highlights significant discrepancies in revenue estimations for companies like Glencore and Adani Enterprises compared to the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), suggesting that Trucost's methodology may lead financial institutions to underestimate their exposure to coal and carbon-intensive activities.

Reclaim Finance compares the Trucost list used by the French Banking Federation with the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), arguing that Trucost significantly underrepresents coal exposure. The analysis finds that Trucost misses critical coal infrastructure projects, major global coal companies, and hundreds of firms planning new coal capacity. Furthermore, the report highlights discrepancies in revenue estimations for companies like Glencore, Adani Enterprises, and Sasol, suggesting that Trucost's methodology may allow financial institutions to continue supporting high-emission entities despite their exclusion policies.