Search Climate Insights Directory

A joint letter from various environmental and climate organizations calling on global insurance associations to ensure COVID-19 stimulus packages support a low-carbon transition rather than fossil fuel industries, while urging the insurance sector to end coverage for coal and oil and gas expansion.

Six European NGOs are urging the NGFS to push central banks to exclude fossil fuels from recovery plans and asset purchases to ensure a green recovery.

Reclaim Finance has filed two information requests with the European Central Bank (ECB) demanding the disclosure of individual asset values and climate-related data for its corporate sector purchase programs. The organization argues that the current lack of transparency prevents stakeholders from understanding the environmental impact of monetary policy and hinders the democratic process during the ECB's strategic review and its response to the Covid-19 crisis.

The European Central Bank (ECB) is criticized for failing to disclose sufficient information to evaluate the climate impact of its asset purchase programs, including the Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP). Reclaim Finance has filed two information requests seeking the separate value of each bond held and specific data on assets linked to fossil fuels and the Global Coal Exit List, arguing that this transparency is essential for the ECB's strategic review of its monetary policy strategy.

The document advocates for the issuance of common European debt to fund a sustainable recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. It proposes a 'Green Solidarity Fund' that would exclude fossil fuel activities and prioritize environmental protection and social equity. The author argues that a green recovery is only possible if it includes a rapid phase-out of coal, oil, and gas to meet Paris Agreement goals, suggesting that the debt could be reimbursed through a carbon frontier tax or financial transaction taxes.

Reclaim Finance supports the Financial Stability Institute's call for restrictions on bank dividends and bonuses and increased transparency during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it argues that these measures are insufficient unless they also include lower credit rates for small businesses and households, and a systemic integration of climate-related risks. The author proposes adjusting countercyclical buffers and capital requirements to reflect exposure to carbon-intensive assets and fossil fuels, alongside 'green' recovery plans that exclude fossil fuels.

The document highlights the shared origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and climate risks, both stemming from the degradation of the natural environment. It argues that traditional financial risk models cannot capture future climate risks and that delaying climate action while addressing the pandemic would be a 'double erreur'. The text advocates for green recovery plans, the integration of ESG criteria into central bank portfolios, and the exclusion of fossil fuels—specifically coal and unconventional oil and gas—from monetary and prudential crisis responses.

A joint letter from several financial and environmental organizations calling on the NGFS to prevent central banks from supporting high carbon emitters during the COVID-19 crisis. The authors argue that current liquidity measures risk returning to "business as usual" and propose specific actions, including the exclusion of polluting assets from collateral frameworks and quantitative easing programs, and the development of green and brown taxonomies to mitigate systemic climate-related financial risks.

The document calls for financial institutions to stop supporting new metallurgical coal mines and to require steel companies to adopt decarbonization targets. It highlights that steel plants in several European countries were among the highest CO2 emitters in 2019 and suggests that hydrogen and electric arc furnaces powered by renewables are viable paths toward decarbonization.

A joint letter from several NGOs calling for the activation of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to support EU Member States during the Covid-19 crisis without imposing austerity measures, instead aligning recovery funds with the European Green Deal and climate objectives.

A coalition of organizations criticizes the French government's failure to strictly condition state aid on the non-payment of dividends, arguing that companies benefiting from public funds, such as partial unemployment schemes, should not privatize profits while socializing losses. The authors demand a mandatory suspension of dividends and bonuses to prioritize employee remuneration and investment in a more resilient, ecological economic model.

The document criticizes the European Central Bank (ECB) for implementing coronavirus relief measures that primarily benefit large, polluting companies and banks rather than small businesses and households. It highlights that quantitative easing and loan facilities lack criteria to target the most vulnerable and fail to account for carbon impacts or climate risks in collateral. Additionally, the author argues that the relaxation of prudential rules and the postponement of European stress tests weaken financial risk prevention and increase the systemic risk posed by carbon assets.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' new fossil fuel policy is inadequate, citing weak exclusion thresholds for coal, flawed metrics for measuring coal exposure, and limited restrictions on oil and gas projects, particularly in the US and Argentina.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' new fossil fuel policies are inadequate, citing the bank's use of revenue-based rather than capacity-based metrics for coal exclusion and its failure to ban hydraulic fracturing outside Europe and the UK.

Reclaim Finance argues that the ECB's emergency measures to combat the coronavirus crisis—specifically quantitative easing, targeted loans, and the easing of prudential rules—primarily benefit large, polluting companies and banks. The organization contends that these measures lack mechanisms to support small businesses and households and fail to account for carbon risks in collateral or capital requirements, thereby increasing the risk of a systemic financial crisis linked to climate change.

Reclaim Finance requests that the European Central Bank exclude companies from its securities purchases and collateral lists based on specific fossil fuel development activities and exposure thresholds, including a 20% revenue threshold for coal and a 15% reserve threshold for unconventional oil and gas.

The document argues that central banks, particularly the European Central Bank (ECB), are failing to address the climate emergency despite their power to influence the financing of polluting versus green activities. It claims the ECB actively supports polluters through collateral frameworks and Quantitative Easing, which benefit fossil fuel and coal companies. While noting a growing awareness within the NGFS and the Banque de France, the text demands an immediate end to the financing of climate-destructive assets to ensure financial stability and meet European climate goals.

A group of European investors warns Fortum that its support for the Datteln 4 coal plant in Germany and Uniper's legal threats against the Dutch government are misaligned with the Paris Agreement and expose the company to significant market and litigation risks. The investors highlight that 79% of EU coal capacity is already loss-making and urge Fortum to commit to a net-zero emissions trajectory by 2050.

The document calls for an immediate end to financial support for fossil fuel expansion to meet the 1.5°C climate goal. It criticizes financial institutions for insufficient exclusion policies and highlights the danger of non-conventional hydrocarbons and the continued expansion plans of oil and gas majors.

The document opposes converting coal power plants in Réunion to biomass, citing higher direct CO2 emissions, carbon debt from forest harvesting, and risks to biodiversity and food security. It argues that importing massive quantities of biomass pellets—estimated at 900,000 tonnes per year for the Bois-Rouge and Le Gol plants—contradicts France's 2015 energy transition law regarding overseas energy autonomy and suggests prioritizing solar and wind energy instead.