Search Climate Insights Directory

New satellite technology suggests methane leaks are more widespread than previously thought, increasing the risk of stranded assets for financial institutions supporting fossil fuel expansion, particularly shale reserves in the United States.

The document highlights that oil and gas methane emissions reached nearly 80 Mt in 2017, representing 6% of global energy sector greenhouse gas emissions. It criticizes the IEA for calling for stronger policies rather than an immediate stop to gas expansion, and advocates for limiting methane-reduction technologies to existing infrastructure while halting all new gas projects and their financing.

The document demands that AXA cease providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, divest from unconventional hydrocarbons, and adopt a stricter definition of the Arctic region. It specifically calls for AXA to vote against Total's climate strategy, divest from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and implement an exclusion policy for soy traders linked to deforestation in the Cerrado.

The document argues that the original SFDR framework led to confusion and greenwashing due to vague criteria for fund classification. It recommends that the proposed SFDR 2 exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories—including 'ESG'—and establish clearer, data-driven definitions for 'transition' funds based on emissions, targets, and investments. Additionally, it warns against reducing transparency requirements, such as Principle Adverse Impacts (PAIs), and opposes clauses that would prevent EU Member States from implementing more ambitious national transparency rules.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Amundi for voting in favor of TotalEnergies' 'Say On Climate' plan despite its failure to align capital expenditures (CAPEX) with a 1.5°C trajectory. The letter highlights inconsistencies in Amundi's voting patterns across seven oil and gas majors, noting that Amundi approved plans for Repsol, TotalEnergies, and BP while rejecting those of Woodside Petroleum, Shell, and Equinor. Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's current approach ignores the IEA Net Zero scenario, which mandates no new oil and gas fields, and calls for a systematized engagement policy that includes commitments to divest from companies continuing fossil fuel expansion.

Reclaim Finance analyzes the EU's decision to include gas and nuclear energy in its green taxonomy. The report argues that the criteria for gas—such as the 270 gCO2e/kWh emission threshold and the 2030 construction deadline—are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal and risk creating stranded assets. Regarding nuclear energy, the report contends that long construction times and the lack of operational geological waste storage by 2050 undermine its status as a 'transitional' activity, while noting that only France and Finland currently have advanced storage projects.

The report asserts that existing production and export capacities are sufficient to meet global fossil gas demand, which is expected to peak before 2030. It highlights that demand declines in developed economies, such as the EU, Japan, and South Korea, will offset potential increases in emerging economies. The document concludes by calling for financial institutions to halt all support for fossil gas expansion, including new gas fields and LNG export terminals.

The report finds a significant imbalance in energy financing among the 65 largest global banks, with a ratio of 0.42:1 in favor of fossil fuels over sustainable power supply between 2021 and 2024. This is far below the 6:1 ratio by 2030 recommended by the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario. While European banks show slightly better ratios, financing for sustainable power remains heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving emerging markets underfunded. The report also criticizes banks for using 'blurry' targets and problematic technologies like CCUS and bioenergy to inflate their green credentials.

The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund (the Oil Fund) held US$6.15 billion in bonds across 39 oil and gas developers as of June 2024. The report argues that these bonds provide fresh capital for upstream and midstream expansion, contradicting the Fund's ambition to lead in climate risk management. Case studies on TotalEnergies, Enbridge, and ExxonMobil highlight the misalignment between the Fund's financial support and the companies' lack of credible transition plans. The authors recommend a policy to halt new bond purchases from oil and gas developers and a phased divestment from existing holdings.

The 'Scan de la Finance Fossile' evaluates 56 French financial institutions on their policies regarding high-risk oil and gas sectors. The analysis finds that fewer than half of these actors have policies covering any of the five most risky sectors, and existing policies often contain loopholes that allow continued financing of companies and infrastructure that facilitate fossil fuel expansion.

The briefing contends that converting fossil gas infrastructure to other energy sources is generally unrealistic due to technical challenges, prohibitive costs, and insufficient projected energy volumes. It asserts that hydrogen and biogas cannot replace the scale of fossil gas, and that 'blending' serves only to prolong fossil gas dependency. While it acknowledges limited viability for converting long-distance pipelines and geological storage for 'hard-to-abate' sectors, it concludes that no new gas infrastructure is justified based on future conversion potential.

The French Nat-Cat scheme, a public-private partnership, is facing instability as the public reinsurer (CCR) absorbs an increasing share of claims, with losses exceeding €3 billion between 2015 and 2024. While policyholders face higher premiums and local authorities struggle to secure coverage in high-risk areas, ten of the largest European insurers and reinsurers have reported record financial performance, with cumulative net income increasing by 60% between 2010 and 2024. Reclaim Finance argues that the current burden-sharing is unfair and urges public authorities to mobilize these profitable insurers to fund climate disaster prevention and damage compensation.

The document critiques the ECB's climate roadmap as insufficient and proposes a comprehensive set of recommendations to align the bank's operations with the Paris Agreement. It advocates for replacing 'market neutrality' with a climate-aligned benchmark, decarbonising the collateral framework and asset purchases, and adjusting refinancing operations like TLTROs to penalise carbon-intensive lending. Additionally, it calls for the integration of climate risks into internal credit ratings and the implementation of stricter prudential capital requirements (Pillar I and II) for fossil fuel exposures to ensure financial stability and support the EU's low-carbon transition.

Reclaim Finance critiques the ACPR's climate pilot exercise, warning that the exclusion of solvency requirements, the use of a dynamic balance sheet, and the focus on extreme weather events over chronic risks may artificially reduce measured climate risks. The organization recommends including the year 2030 in projections, expanding the geographic scope beyond France, Europe, and the US, and conducting a more granular analysis of the fossil fuel sector.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for participating in an EU consultation and provides template answers advocating for stricter regulations on the financial sector. It argues for the creation of a 'brown taxonomy' to identify and exclude fossil fuels and polluting activities, the implementation of a 'social taxonomy' to protect labor rights, and the alignment of all EU financial activities with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It specifically suggests that the European Central Bank's monetary policy and post-COVID-19 recovery measures should exclude the most polluting sectors.

The document challenges the gas industry's claims that existing and new fossil gas infrastructure can be converted to hydrogen or biogas to avoid stranded assets. It argues that projected energy volumes for hydrogen and bioenergy by 2050 are far too low to justify current gas infrastructure levels. While it acknowledges limited potential for converting long-distance pipelines and geological storage for 'hard-to-decarbonize sectors', it dismisses biogas as unsustainable and LNG terminal conversion as economically non-viable. Reclaim Finance recommends that financial actors cease all support for gas expansion.

The report reveals that BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, and BPCE provided $10 billion in financing to Bunge and Cargill between January 2024 and September 2025, despite the traders' exposure to deforestation risks in Brazil. Analysis shows that Bunge and Cargill are linked to 11,800 hectares of deforestation in the Amazon and 91,000 hectares in the Cerrado during this period. The document criticizes the deforestation policies of the involved banks as insufficient, lacking clear objectives, and opaque in their implementation.

Several NGOs have issued a statement condemning the hostile treatment of local community representatives, including Edwin Gariguez, at the annual general meetings of French banks. The statement highlights that at the BNP Paribas meeting on 16 May 2023, speakers testifying about the impacts of the oil and gas industry were booed, subjected to racist comments from shareholders, and mistreated by security. The signing NGOs call for BNP Paribas to implement measures to ensure respectful debate and to issue an apology to the affected community representatives.

The document clarifies the methodology used to identify "fossil assets" in bank balance sheets, noting that the scope is conservative and may underestimate risks due to bank opacity. It argues that while a significant loss in fossil asset value could severely impact bank equity, immediate bankruptcy is not certain as losses may be gradual and banks have other equity reserves. The text distinguishes its approach from the ACPR and AMF pilot exercise by focusing on stranded assets rather than optimistic climate scenarios. Finally, it proposes a "fossil bank"—a "bad bank" funded by the ECB—to repurchase fossil assets at a discount to ensure financial stability and a just transition without using public funds.

The report 'Five Years Lost' details 12 major fossil fuel expansion projects globally, estimating they would collectively emit at least 175 gigatons of CO2, consuming up to 75% of the remaining carbon budget for a 66% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C. It identifies a systemic failure in the finance industry, noting that between January 2016 and August 2020, financial institutions provided $1.6 trillion in loans and underwriting and $1.1 trillion in investments to 133 companies driving these projects. The document highlights the role of public finance, specifically Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) like the World Bank Group, in de-risking these projects. Case studies cover diverse regions including the Permian Basin (USA), Vaca Muerta (Argentina), and the Barents Sea (Norway), emphasizing the associated human rights abuses, environmental degradation, and the 'myth' of natural gas as a bridge fuel.