EU-regulated “green” funds are investing in some of the world’s biggest coal companies that are expanding their operations in contrast to a 2021 UN agreement for countries to reduce their use of the dirty fossil fuel.
European investors hold shares worth at least $65 million in major coal firms across China, India, the United States, Indonesia and South Africa within funds designated as “promoting environmental and social” goals under EU rules, an analysis by Climate Home and media partners found.
Taken together, these companies emit around 1,393 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere every year, putting them among the world’s top five polluters if they were a country.
The investments are owned by major financial firms including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Fideuram, a subsidiary of Italy’s largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo. Most firms analysed are signatories of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), whose members pledge to align their portfolios with climate-friendly investment.
The asset managers told Climate Home their coal holdings do not contradict EU green policies or the 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
At the COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, countries agreed for the first time to accelerate efforts “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”. “Unabated” means power produced using coal without any technology to capture, store or use the planet-heating CO2 emitted during the process.
But rather than shrinking, global coal capacity has grown since the signing of the Glasgow Climate Pact with a fleet of new coal plants firing up their boilers, primarily in China, India and Indonesia. Coal miners in those countries have also boosted their operations to keep up with the increasing demand.
European leaders have heavily opposed this, with EU president Ursula von der Leyen saying the bloc is “very worried” about coal expansion in China.
“Light green” funds
The investments analysed by Climate Home have been made by funds classified under Article 8 of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), which the European Commission hoped would discourage greenwashing and promote sustainable investments when it was introduced in 2021.
Article 8 – known as ‘light green’ – refers broadly to a fund that has “environmental and social characteristics”, while the ‘dark green’ Article 9 refers more directly to sustainability.
The rules were also intended to offer members of the public more clarity on where asset managers invest their money and enable them to make an informed decision on whether they want their savings or pension pots to prop up climate-harming activities.
Workers shovel coal onto a truck at a coal yard near a coal mine in Huating, Gansu province, China. REUTERS/Thomas Peter
But a group of European financial market watchdogs warned this month the rules are having the opposite effect and called for an overhaul of the system.
“Status as ‘Article 8’ or ‘Article 9’ products have been used since the outset in marketing material as ‘quality labels’ for sustainability, consequently posing greenwashing and mis-selling risks,” they said in a joint opinion to the European Commission.
“The general public is still being misled when it comes to sustainable funds,” Lara Cuvelier, a sustainable investments campaigner at Reclaim Finance, told Climate Home. “The regulations are very weak and there is no clear criteria as to what can or cannot be included. It’s still in the hands of investors to decide that for themselves.”
Funding coal expansion
Climate Home identified investments in the biggest-polluting companies in the coal sector as part of a wider investigation led by Voxeurope, which tracked holdings by funds that disclose information under the EU’s sustainable finance directive.
These “green” funds include investments in mining companies like Coal India and China Shenhua – the respective countries’ top coal producers – and Indonesia’s Adaro Energy, as well as in giant coal power producers such as NTPC in India and China Resources Power Holdings.
All of these companies are planning large-scale expansions of their coal output, according to the influential Global Coal Exit List compiled by German NGO Urgewald.
No new coal mines, mine extensions or new unabated coal plants are needed if the world is to reach net zero emissions in the energy sector by 2050 and keep the 1.5C warming limit of the Paris Agreement “within reach”, according to projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
State-owned Coal India is the world’s largest coal producer, with fast-growing output topping 773 million tonnes in the latest financial year. It is targeting 1 billion tonnes of annual coal production by 2025-26 by opening new mines and expanding dozens of existing ones.
IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down
In its latest annual report, Coal India cited “pressure of international bodies like [the] UN to comply with [the] Paris Agreement” as one of the main threats to its business. Coal India’s share value has more than doubled over the last 12 months on the back of stronger coal demand in the country, as extreme heatwaves have fuelled the use of air-conditioning among other factors.
State-run mining and energy giant China Shenhua plans to invest over $1 billion in 2024 to expand its fleet of coal power stations and build new coal mines. “We will keep a close eye on climate change to improve the clean and efficient use of coal,” its latest annual report said.
Big investors
The funds with stakes in those coal-heavy companies are managed by Fideuram, an arm of Italy’s largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo, US-based AllianceBernstein and Mercer, a subsidiary of the world’s largest insurance broker Marsh McLennan.
Coal investments in Fideuram’s Article 8 funds – worth at least $16 million – also appear to breach the company’s own coal exclusion policy, designed to rule out holding shares in certain coal firms.
Two of its flagship “emerging markets” funds claim to promote environmental and social characteristics including “climate change prevention” and the “reduction of carbon emissions”, according to information disclosed under EU rules. To achieve their ‘green’ objectives, the funds claim to exclude any investment in companies “deriving at least 25% of their revenues” from the extraction, production and distribution of electricity connected with coal.
But Climate Home found the funds include investments in at least six major coal companies exclusively or primarily involved in coal mining or power generation.
A coal-fired power plant under construction in Shenmu, Shaanxi province, China, in November 2023. REUTERS/Ella Cao
Fideuram did not answer Climate Home’s questions about the funds’ apparent breach of their own policy. But a company spokesperson said in a written statement that “investments in sectors with high-carbon emissions do not conflict with the objectives of the SFDR, which concern the transparency of sustainability investments, nor with the Paris Agreement, which promotes a transition to a low-carbon economy”.
A spokesperson for Mercer said its Article 8 fund, which holds shares in NTPC and China Resources Power Holdings. has an exclusion policy to avoid investing in companies that generate more than 1% of their revenue from thermal coal extraction. “Based on the data provided by ISS [a provider of environmental ratings], no groups involved breach the 1% threshold, and therefore, the fund is not in violation of its SFDR commitments,” they added.
AllianceBernstein did not respond to a request for comment.
Coal-hungry steelmaking
While excluding investments in so-called thermal coal used for electricity generation, several ‘green’ funds put their money in companies producing coking coal – or metallurgical (met) coal – which is used to make steel.
Goldman Sachs’ Article 8 funds hold shares worth several million dollars in Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa, Europe’s largest coking coal producer, and Shanxi Meijin in China. BlackRock offers exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tracking indexes that include investments in SunCoke, a leading met coal producer in the US and Brazil, Alabama-based Warrior Met and Shanxi Meijin.
Reclaim Finance’s Cuvelier said that, up until recently, the focus has been on pushing thermal coal out of investor portfolios because the alternatives to met coal in steel production were “less developed”.
“There are now increasing calls on financial institutions to cover met coal as well in their exclusion policies as alternatives exist,” she added. “It’s becoming very important because there are new projects under development that should be avoided”.
A spokesperson for BlackRock said: “As a fiduciary, we are focused on providing our clients with choice to meet their investment objectives. Our fund prospectuses and supporting material provide transparency as to the methodology and investment objectives of each fund”.
Goldman Sachs did not reply to a request for comment.
Reforms on the horizon
At the end of 2022, the European Commission began a review of the SFDR’s application with a view to updating its sustainable finance rules.
Future reforms may include changes to the ways funds are categorised. “There are persistent concerns that the current market use of the SFDR as a labelling scheme might lead to risks of greenwashing… partly because the existing concepts and definitions in the regulation were not conceived for that purpose,” the Commission said in a consultation paper released last year.
It also indicated that the existing categories under Articles 8 and 9 could either be better defined or scrapped entirely and replaced with a different system. The new Commission, yet to be formed following last month’s elections, will decide if and how to move forward with the reform process.
Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold
Separately, the EU’s market supervisory authority, ESMA, has recently issued guidelines to prevent funds from misusing words like “sustainability”, “ESG” – environmental, social and governance – or “Paris-aligned” in their names. A handful of the funds with coal investments analysed by Climate Home have used those labels.
Under the new guidelines, asset managers wanting to slap climate-friendly labels on their funds will have to exclude companies that derive more than a certain percentage of revenues from fossil fuels.
Climate Home produced this article with data analysis contributions from Stefano Valentino (Bertha Fellow 2024) and Giorgio Michalopoulos. This article is part of an investigation coordinated by Voxeurop and European Investigative Collaborations with the support of the Bertha Challenge fellowship.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; additional reporting by Sebastián Rodríguez; editing by Sebastián Rodríguez, Megan Rowling and Joe Lo)
The post EU “green” funds invest millions in expanding coal giants in China, India appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU “green” funds invest millions in expanding coal giants in China, India
Claver Gatete is Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa. Jason Veysey is Energy Modeling Program Director and Senior Scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute. Lisa Sachs is Director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment at Columbia University.
The case for global energy transition has rarely been clearer. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year exposed the cost of unplanned, fossil-dependent systems, while the falling cost of renewables, the rising penetration of electric vehicles, and the growing value of demand flexibility have made the direction of travel obvious. The benefits of a clean, secure, integrated system are no longer in dispute. What remains unclear is how to build it.
Countries around the world have called for faster renewable energy deployment and alternative energy arrangements. A secure, affordable, resilient, decarbonised system requires specific investments in specific places in a specific sequence, optimised across sectors and borders. But very few governments have the analytical foundation to translate those imperatives into investment.
The two instruments that are supposed to determine investment priorities for decarbonisation – Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and country platforms – cannot answer the most basic question facing any country undertaking an energy transition: what should the energy system look like?
-
New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus
China and Australia drove global decline in new capacity additions in 2025, but planned production kept growing
To close this gap, every country needs a bankable, economy-wide optimisation model for its energy system. A model is not a plan, but it can help answer the critical question of what the future energy system should look like. It shows how optimal scenarios vary as assumptions and policies are adjusted, calculates investment requirements and sequencing, and quantifies how system costs are affected by assumptions, policies, and exogenous variables like trade policy and financing terms.
Tool for efficient investment
Optimisation is a simplified way of simulating an energy system, but it can be an extremely powerful tool for moving energy planning from reactive (how do we manage the disparate actions in the energy system?) to intentional (what energy system underpins our national objectives?). A model can show how optimal scenarios vary as assumptions and policies are adjusted, and how investment requirements are quantified and sequenced.
Optimisation models can treat the energy system and the sectors it serves as an integrated whole, optimising across sectors and projects in ways that can be mutually reinforcing. If considered independently, growth in industrial demand, transport electrification, and digital infrastructure can add stress to the energy system. But an optimised plan can arrange these and other changes in an efficient, synergistic way.
Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals
New load can be added where low-cost power is available; industrial customers can ensure the viability of investments in energy supply; electric vehicle charging policy can smooth load curves and reduce costs for all consumers.
Additionally, optimisation modeling can also change the financeability of investments. Taken alone, each project faces uncertainty about the rest of the system, which raises the cost of capital and causes projects to stall or unwind after contracts are signed. A coherent, optimised plan makes visible the coordination that private capital would otherwise have to bet on: identified offtake, sequenced and committed transmission, contracted power supply, and so on.
What COP31 and COP32 should do
The upcoming COPs in Turkey and Ethiopia can shift the center of gravity of international climate cooperation from fragmented commitments to planning. Three moves are urgently needed.
First, optimised, economy-wide, long-term energy system planning must be the foundation on which any meaningful NDC, country platform, or finance commitment rests. NDCs are typically drafted by environment or single-line ministries, with limited cross-sectoral input from ministries of energy, finance, and planning. They contain targets, derived from sectoral strategies or national commitments, not from an analytically grounded picture of what the energy system should look like and what investments would make it work. Country platforms are generally a portfolio of investments assembled from existing project pipelines, rather than derived from a system-level analysis of what an optimised, decarbonised energy system would require.
Second, recognise regions as a key planning unit. Modern integrated energy systems are inherently regional. Renewable endowments are unevenly distributed; balancing variable supply across borders lowers aggregate cost, reduces redundant backup capacity, and unlocks economies of scale no individual nation can achieve. Many energy investments in Southeast Asia, East Africa, Southern Africa and Central Asia may only be financeable in a regional context. Assessing domestic infrastructure without regional optimisation perpetuates the perception that decarbonisation is more expensive than it is.
COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification
Third, finance the planning capacity. A coordinated commitment by multilateral development banks, bilateral donors, and philanthropic partners to help every region and its constituent countries develop and maintain their own modelling capability, with open-source tools and regional analytical hubs, would close the most consequential gap in the current architecture. The cost is small relative to current spending on country platforms, failed project preparation, and misallocated infrastructure investment.
This includes supporting regional institutions such as the ASEAN Centre for Energy, the African Energy Commission, regional power pools, and the Latin American and Caribbean Energy Organization to determine what optimised regional systems require. Country-by-country pledging, repeated at every COP, will not deliver what meaningfully integrated systems can.
The 2026 energy crisis made the cost of unplanned, fossil-dependent systems newly visible. That window of clarity will close. The international community should seize the moment to build the planning foundation that has been missing for thirty years, rather than commissioning another round of NDCs or pledges, striving for outcomes neither was designed to deliver.
The post Every country needs a model to help optimise its energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
Every country needs a model to help optimise its energy transition
The world is currently experiencing what is expected to become the strongest El Niño on record – dubbed a “super El Niño” by many.
El Niño is the warm phase of a recurring climate pattern in the tropical Pacific that releases heat from the ocean into the atmosphere.
This temporarily raises global temperatures and reshapes rainfall and extreme weather around the world – impacting the lives of billions of people.
The current El Niño event began in June and is expected to last into 2027.
El Niño is part of a wider climate pattern called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle.
The ENSO cycle also has a cool phase, known as La Niña, as well as a “neutral” phase. El Niño and La Niña events typically last between nine and 12 months, but can go on longer.
Below, Carbon Brief explains how the ENSO cycle works, its impacts on extreme weather and global temperatures and why this El Niño event is projected to be the most intense since records began.
The post Explainer: How the ‘super El Niño’ will reshape the world’s weather appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/el-nino-explainer/index.html
The second-largest reservoir in the US reached a record-low water height on Saturday – just days after the country’s largest reservoir broke its own record.
Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are located on the Colorado River.
They provide water for populations across seven US states in the south-western US, with around 40 million people getting some or all of their municipal water from the Colorado River.
The river also provides water for around 5.5m acres (22,258 square kilometres) of farmland across Colorado, Arizona, California and the other states in the river basin.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that climate change, population growth and over-consumption are all contributing to the current record-low levels of the reservoirs.
Record lows
At full capacity, Lakes Mead and Powell can hold a combined 68 cubic kilometres of water – enough to supply all household consumption in the contiguous US for nearly 1.5 years. However, the water level in both reservoirs has been declining for decades.
The chart below shows the water level of Lake Mead, in metres above mean sea level. The reservoir, which began to fill in 1935 following the construction of the Hoover Dam, has a “full pool” maximum capacity of 347.60 metres. The water level in Lake Mead reached a record low of 317.11 metres on 7 August.
The following chart shows the water level of Lake Powell, in metres above mean sea level. Lake Powell’s full-pool level is 1,127.76 metres.
While the reservoir reached its maximum capacity several times in the 1980s, it has not done so since. On 15 August, the water level in Lake Powell was recorded at a new record-low of 1,072.87 metres.
Both reservoirs have continued to decline in the days since breaking their respective records. The downward trend will largely continue in both lakes until next spring, when the snowpack in the mountains of the Upper Colorado River Basin begins to melt, says Dr Jack Schmidt, a senior research scientist at Utah State University’s Center for Colorado River Studies. He tells Carbon Brief:
“The big dilemma of the moment is that we’re only in the middle of August, and we have no assurance of what the coming winter will be. The only thing we can be sure of is that we will be depleting overall total basin reservoir storage from now until, roughly, early April.”
Compounding factors
The record lows across the two reservoirs are the result of several compounding factors, experts tell Carbon Brief.
Since the turn of the 20th century, the amount of water flowing along the Upper Colorado River has declined by about 20%. Research suggests that half of this decline can be attributed to human-induced climate change.
Most of the river’s streamflow comes from the snowpack of the Upper Colorado River Basin, which stretches across five western US states but is primarily located in Colorado and Utah.
This region has been gripped by a historic “megadrought” for more than a quarter of a century. Nearly half of the megadrought’s intensity over 2000-18 is attributable to climate change, according to a 2020 study.
At the same time, the increasing population in the US south-west has put added pressure on the Colorado River’s water supply. The number of people obtaining some or all of their water from the Colorado system has grown by 15 million (around 60%) since 1992.
Schmidt tells Carbon Brief:
“There’s an ultimate cause of the present water crisis, and there’s a proximate cause. The ultimate cause is a warming climate, a warming planet and a pretty clear correlation between warming conditions and decreased runoff in the Colorado River Basin.
“The proximate cause is that in this messy democratic republic of ours, big policy decisions that match the variability of the climate occur painfully slowly – with intense political negotiations – and only incrementally.”
On 31 July, the US Bureau of Reclamation, which manages water resources in the western US, released an environmental impact statement on its proposed post-2026 strategy for managing Lakes Powell and Mead. The strategy itself has not been released yet.
Schmidt notes that the statement does appear to give the Bureau flexibility to “respond to crisis” by reducing the delivery of water to several states. However, he adds:
“They acknowledge it won’t work if we just stay critically dry, and of course every climate model for the 21st century, especially with a continually warming planet, says that that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”
The post Analysis: The two largest reservoirs in the US have hit record-low levels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: The two largest reservoirs in the US have hit record-low levels
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits