A strategy discussion at New York Climate Week 2026, bringing together frontline actors fighting data centers in communities and the policy advocates fighting for guardrails to prevent their economic, social, and climate harms. In this time of relentless attacks on people and planet, our strength is our aligned action. Just as the carbon bubble analysis equipped a generation of climate activists, bringing together community, economic, and political AI expertise can strengthen the fight on the ground.

If interested in attending, please contact events@carbontracker.org

SPEAKERS & TOPICS

• The AI bubble could burst — and take the economy with it
  • Matthew Scherer, Open Markets Institute
• Federal principles for data centers and AI governance
  • Clara Vondrich and J.B. Branch, Public Citizen
• The Investor Dilemma
  • Danielle Fugere, As You Sow
• How communities are stopping data centers
  • Abre’ Conner, NAACP
• Private equity financing of data centers
  • Ashlee Thomas, Private Equity Stakeholder Project
• Big Tech: now Big Oil’s #1 Accomplice
  • Holly Alpine, Embedded Emissions
• Data Centers and Democracy
  • Saul Levin, Hum podcast

The post NYCW 2026: AI Data Center Roundtable appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

A breakfast strategy session at New York Climate Week 2026, aligning Amazon, Congo Basin and Coral Triangle strategies ahead of COP31. The aim: moving Fossil Free Zones from community-led demands into formalised, low-cost policy tools that governments can integrate into national energy transition and deforestation roadmaps.

PROGRAMME & SPEAKERS

If interested in attending, please contact events@carbontracker.org

The post NYCW 2026: Fossil Free Zones Breakfast appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

What can we celebrate? What can we challenge?

A Laudato Si’ and Carbon Tracker panel at Climate Week NYC 2026. With overshoot of 1.5°C now called unavoidable and a stable climate recognised as a legal obligation, we ask what the Season of Creation gives us to celebrate, what it demands we challenge, and whether honest realism or optimism better serves the fight ahead.

If interested in attending, please contact events@carbontracker.org

THEMES FOR DISCUSSION

1. Limiting overshoot
   • UNEP’s September 2026 report: at least 1.8°C even in the most optimistic future. “There are no good
     outcomes above 1.5°C.”
2. A stable climate as a human right
   • The ICJ advisory opinion of July 2025, endorsed by the UN General Assembly 141–8 in May 2026,
     with the COP31 host among the abstentions.
3. A decade of COPs without “fossil fuels”
   • From Paris to COP30, outcomes that consistently omitted the phrase, and the Santa Marta coalition of
     the willing formed in response.
4. The growing cost of delay
   • Over 35,000 excess deaths across Europe in the summer 2026 heatwaves; seven of nine planetary
     boundaries already exceeded.
5. Optimism or realism?
   • “What if we stop pretending?” against communities that rise to the occasion, and Laudato Si’s reminder
     that the cry of the Earth is the cry of the poor.

SPEAKERS

The post NYCW 2026: Season of Creation appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

The post Trucking’s Tipping Point: Are Markets Underpricing the Electric-Truck Transition? appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Carbon Tracker is taking part in a series of discussions at New York Climate Week, bringing an investor perspective to key questions shaping the energy transition

• AI, climate and corporate accountability
  Carbon Tracker is co-hosting a roundtable with As You Sow and Public Citizen exploring the economic, social and climate implications of AI and data centre development. The discussion will bring together investors, policy advocates and communities working to address the impacts of data centres, including questions around financing, corporate power and the potential risks of an AI bubble. 
• Climate and the energy transition
  Carbon Tracker will join the Laudato Si’ Movement for a discussion on climate and the energy transition, including the Santa Marta fossil fuel phase-out. The session will explore how finance, policy and investment can support a shift away from fossil fuels, as well as the barriers that remain to accelerating the transition. 
• Fossil Free Zones
  Together with Earth Insight, Carbon Tracker will convene philanthropic partners and civil society leaders from across the Amazon, Congo Basin and Coral Triangle to examine how Fossil Free Zones could support national energy transition and deforestation strategies ahead of COP31. The session will explore how the introduction of zones to protect key ecosystems from fossil fuel development can become a practical tool for national energy transition and deforestation strategies ahead of COP31. 

If interested in attending, please contact events@carbontracker.org

The post New York Climate Week 2026 appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

London, 27th August – Heavy-duty transport has long been viewed as one of the most difficult sectors to electrify. Carbon Tracker’s new report, Trucking’s Tipping Point, shows that electric trucks are expected to become economically competitive with diesel across major markets in the early 2030s, overturning the long-held assumption that the sector will be slow to electrify. The analysis demonstrates that China’s rapid freight electrification is poised for swift global export. Equity analysts must urgently reflect this accelerating transition in truckmaker valuations, while portfolio managers should adjust their investment decisions before market re-pricing takes hold.  

Drawing on the University of Exeter’s Future Technology Transformations (FTT) model, Carbon Tracker applies an investor-focused analytical framework to assess transition risks and opportunities in the commercial vehicle sector. Calibrated with Carbon Tracker’s proprietary market and asset data, the analysis identifies when commercial tipping points are expected to be reached across major markets and which manufacturers are best positioned for the transition. 

Commercial fleet purchasing is ultimately an economic decision driven by total cost of ownership (TCO). The analysis shows that falling battery costs and manufacturing scale are bringing electric trucks towards cost parity with diesel. Once that threshold is reached, adoption is expected to accelerate rapidly across major markets. 

For investors, the key risk is not simply when electric trucks overtake diesel in new sales, but how quickly adoption accelerates once commercial tipping points are reached. Faster transition speeds could lead to and then accelerate the write-down of legacy internal combustion manufacturing assets, while rewarding manufacturers that are better prepared for an increasingly electric market. 

Ben Scott, Head of Energy Supply at Carbon Tracker said:  “Heavy-duty trucking has long been regarded as one of the hardest transport sectors to electrify. While important barriers remain, including charging infrastructure, our analysis shows that improving total cost of ownership will dictate the speed of the trucking EV transition.  Investors should not underestimate how quickly adoption could accelerate once those commercial tipping points are reached and should be asking whether manufacturers have credible strategies to compete in an increasingly electric market.” 

The report recommends investors: 

• Stress-test automotive investments against dynamic cost-parity scenarios, rather than relying solely on static regulatory forecasts, to better assess the speed of the transition and the risk of legacy internal combustion assets losing value.  
• Use active stewardship to challenge incumbent truck manufacturers on their electrification strategies, including how they plan to scale electric platforms, strengthen supply chains and remain competitive as the market transitions. 

–   ENDS   –

Notes to editors
For more information and to arrange interviews please contact: 

Alessandra Moscadelli – alessandra.moscadelli@tracker-group.org 

Sally Palmer – sally.palmer@tracker-group.org 

About Carbon Tracker
Carbon Tracker is an independent financial think tank working to align capital markets with an accelerated energy transition. Through data-driven research, we assess the risks associated with continued fossil fuel investment and opportunities arising from changes in energy demand, technology and climate policy. Our work empowers investors, policymakers and companies to make informed decisions that support an orderly shift to a net zero emissions future.  

www.carbontracker.org 

The post Heavy-duty truck market set for faster-than-expected shift to electrification appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Yet, a fundamental question remains: is oil and gas expansion in the best interest of financial stakeholders? Beneath rhetoric of energy exceptionalism and oil and gas demand growth, the numbers tell a different story.

The same energy crisis that makes Canadian supply look attractive today risks accelerating a market shift away from fossil fuel imports.

Through a short-term lens, oil and gas expansion in Canada may appear lucrative. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, producers operating outside of the Persian Gulf are reaping steep windfalls as global supply tightens. However, the fundamentals of new projects fall short in the face of long-term headwinds.

Oil and gas expansion requires significant upfront capital expenditure to be economically viable, supported by sufficient market demand and prices decades from now. The oil and gas growth narrative in Canada assumes Asian markets, in particular, will absorb long-term export growth.

The accelerating rollout of cheaper and more secure alternatives to oil and gas imports turns this assumption on its head. Asia is electrifying five times faster than the West, while ramping up renewable energy capacity faster than the rest of the world (see Figure 1)[1] – undermining demand for oil and gas in the process. Globally, a range of energy scenarios see demand for oil and gas peaking by 2030 and the mid-2030s, respectively. Reflecting this, investment in clean energy systems already roughly doubles that in fossil fuels.[2] The rise of consolidation among oil and gas majors globally suggests many companies are waking up to the immense transformation of the energy system underway.[3]

Figure 1: Asia is running ahead of the rest of the world on electrotech.

Source: Ember (2026)

Crucially, the current Middle East conflict — while increasing the relative attractiveness of Canadian producers today – may undercut the long-term market demand for Canadian hydrocarbons.

Geopolitical tensions appear to be accelerating Asia’s rapid electrification and renewables buildout, as price-sensitive consumers, businesses, and policymakers confront energy affordability and availability challenges stemming from the region’s high dependence on fossil fuel imports. Across Asia, the doubling of China’s solar PV exports in March 2026, the cancellation of certain LNG-related projects, the fast-tracking of renewable and electricity storage systems, and the restarting of nuclear reactors illustrate this shift.[4]

For LNG specifically, a wave of new projects further threatens to compress prices – compounding the energy transition risk of oil and gas demand destruction. With ~254 million tonnes of LNG expected to come online by 2030, futures markets are seeing LNG prices of $10/MMBtu and below as soon as 2028.[5] At this price, our analysis suggests under-construction and proposed LNG projects in Canada may fail to compete. Simultaneously, LNG price volatility is likely to deter importers from sinking significant capex into regasification infrastructure.

Market uncertainty in coming decades casts doubt on the value-add of potential new oil and gas projects in Canada…

Structural market uncertainty matters to companies and their investors. Investment decisions made today lock oil and gas companies – and their financiers – into projects whose economics depend largely on oil and gas prices decades into the future. Findings from CTI’s Fading Fortunes suggest the extent of this exposure varies: certain Canadian producers face relatively greater risk of value destruction from new projects than others, depending on how cost-competitive their project portfolios are.

Figure 2 summarises the impact of different investment strategies on the upstream oil and gas value of 10 of Canada’s largest producers. The analysis assesses whether investment in new projects adds or destroys value by comparing two growth investment cases against a Depletion case in which no new projects are developed. The “High” investment case (red) reflects business-as-usual “BAU” investment in new projects; the “Managed” investment case (orange) restricts new investment to lower-cost options.

The analysis tests these investment cases under a fast, moderate, and slow transition scenario. The commodity prices tied to these scenarios – while lower than the elevated prices of the 2026 energy crisis – reflect potential long-term prices in the 2030s as markets normalise and oil and gas demand substitution continues.

Figure 2: NPV impact of High and Managed investment relative to Depletion, by Canadian O&G companies under a range of commodity price scenarios.

Sources: Rystad Energy, CTI analysis

Across these 10 companies, downside risk exposure under a fast transition scenario is approximately double the upside potential under a slow transition scenario. Downside risk exposure is particularly pronounced for companies reliant on new gas projects to drive future production.

…yet, financial stakeholders are making long-duration capital bets based on market conditions today.

Canada is continuing to commit capital to assets with multi-decade lives, based on expectations of Asian demand growth for oil and gas imports – precisely as Asia expands clean and homegrown alternatives. Capital decisions are being made based on the extraordinary oil and gas market of 2026, when the financed infrastructure must withstand markets that may look very different through the 2030s and 2040s.

An examination of Canada’s banking system illustrates how this bet is being financed. Canada’s Big Five banks (comprising  Royal Bank of Canada “RBC”, Toronto-Dominion Bank “TD”, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce “CIBC”, Bank of Montreal “BMO”, and Scotiabank) remain among the top financiers globally in terms of lending and underwriting of debt and equity issuances in the oil and gas sector.[6] This financing is often well above average relative to the banks’ size,  compared to their peers. Moreover, the rollback of oil and gas financing policies and emissions targets at several of the Big Five suggests a growing appetite to continue financing oil and gas expansion well into the future.

At a high level, Canada’s Big Five banks appear to have diverged sharply in their response to transition risk exposure from oil and gas financing in recent years. RBC and Scotiabank dropped their 2030 emission reduction targets (and the latter dropped its 2050 net-zero target); simultaneously, they increased their financing of oil and gas expansion companies by  ~8% and ~2%, respectively, from 2024 to 2025. In contrast, CIBC, TD, and BMO Financial Group decreased such financing by ~9%, 7%, and 20%, respectively, over this period.

However, these headline figures do not capture more granular shifts in financing. A CTI analysis of data from the Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition shows upstream expansion financing for nine of Canada’s largest upstream producers in 2024 and 2025, broken down by bank (Figure 3).[7]

Figure 3: Big Five and other bank financing of oil and gas expansion across large oil and gas companies in Canada (2024-2025).

Sources: Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition, CTI analysis

Viewing upstream expansion-related bank financing (Figure 3) alongside the risk profile of upstream project portfolios (Figure 2), it is evident that all of the Big Five have increased upstream expansion financing for certain companies with high-risk upstream project portfolios.

Among Canadian oil and gas companies assessed by CTI, Big Five financing increased most sharply for ARC Resources. Each bank increased its upstream expansion financing for ARC by between 80% to 670%, contrasting sharply with the ~60% reduction in financing by non-Big Five banks. CTI analysis suggests a high level of downside risk exposure within ARC’s upstream project portfolio: under a fast-paced transition scenario, ARC’s potential new upstream projects risk reducing upstream value by ~60%, relative to a scenario in which the company invests in no new projects. Big Five financing also increased for Strathcona and Whitecap, despite the significant downside risk exposure of their project portfolios.

Risk from upstream oil and gas expansion exposes a broad range of stakeholders, with cascading effects.

The financial risk exposure of oil and gas expansion in Canada extends well beyond oil and gas companies and their financiers. The same commodity price assumptions that expose bank financing to risk also expose equity investments and government revenues.

Ultimately, value at risk from new upstream projects puts pressure on the credit quality of Canadian oil and gas companies, with potential implications for national financial stability and lending to the broader Canadian economy.

Risk of asset stranding within the upstream oil and gas sector also exposes midstream oil and gas assets – including pipelines – to lower-than-expected throughput volumes and revenues. This risk within midstream activities undermines the financial viability of proposed new pipelines, which may cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.[8]

Continued dependence on the oil and gas sector for economic growth also exposes certain provinces to fiscal risk. Findings from CTI’s Petro-Provinces at Risk suggest a moderate-paced energy transition could eliminate over 80% of Canadian provincial governments’ expected revenue from upstream oil and gas over the next decade. Export Development Canada’s potentially growing exposure to major projects puts federal tax dollars at risk as well.

What does this mean for Canadian stakeholders?

• For policymakers and regulators: Ottawa and Alberta’s push for oil and gas expansion appears disconnected from the economic reality facing the sector. Expanding the oil and gas system is very different from – and riskier than – continuing to operate existing assets alone. Consider whether the national strategy reflects a realistic set of assumptions around long-term market conditions, and what role the country could play in an emerging electrotech system. Further diversification of the economy could reduce exposure to transition risk from the oil and gas sector while offering opportunities to lead in a new energy landscape.
• For banks: As key markets rapidly transform, can lending portfolios withstand a faster-than-anticipated energy transition? Consider how to adjust financing to a future where demand for oil and gas may be significantly lower than today.
• For investors: Asset managers should assess and make investment decisions based on a realistic range of long-term demand scenarios. Pension funds are particularly exposed to transition-related financial risks from oil and gas portfolio companies, due to the decades-long time horizon of their investment portfolios.

Conclusion

The oil and gas sector has played an important economic role in Canada for many years. But the revenues and jobs it generated in the past are not guaranteed in the future. As technology changes exponentially, fossil fuel expansion in Canada leaves oil and gas companies and their financial stakeholders exposed to a growing risk of value destruction. Prime Minister Carney and financial stakeholders must decide whether they are willing to bet Canada’s fortunes on static assumptions, and what role Canada will play in an emerging energy system of the future.

________________________

[1] Ember, Electric Asia (June 2026) pp. 12, 15.

[2] IEA, World Energy Investment 2026 (2026), p. 202.

[3] CTI, The Quiet Retreat: Why the oil and gas industry is implementing its own decline, even as the IEA resurrects an old growth scenario (November 2025).

[4] Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), The current state of LNG in Canada (July 2026).

[5] IEEFA, The current state of LNG in Canada (July 2026).

[6] Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition, Banking on Climate Chaos 2026 (May 2026), p. 25.

[7] Analysis excludes Imperial Oil due to lack of available data on financing.

[8] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that Canadian taxpayers may potentially cover 90% of the estimated $35.2-$43.7bn cost of a new crude oil pipeline.

The post What energy world is Canada betting on? appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

By Mark Campanale, Carbon Tracker’s Founder and CEO 

As London prepares to host Climate Action Week, much of the discussion will focus on how to accelerate the energy transition through expanding renewable power generation and electrification. But building the new energy system is only half the challenge. 

The recent Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels reflected a growing recognition that managing contraction of the old energy system will require equal attention from policymakers and investors if we are to deliver a successful transition. 

The timing could hardly be more relevant. 

As conflict in the Middle East once again sends shockwaves through global energy markets, governments are facing renewed pressure to strengthen energy security. Predictably, many of the proposed solutions focus on expanding fossil fuel supply. 

Yet the lesson of recent years is not that countries need greater dependence on fossil fuels. It is that they need less. Time and again, geopolitical crises have exposed the vulnerabilities of energy systems built around internationally traded oil and gas. Price shocks originating thousands of miles away are transmitted directly into household bills, business costs and inflation rates. 

Yet despite repeated reminders of these vulnerabilities, the policy response often promotes more fossil fuel supply in the name of energy security. 

That response reflects an increasingly outdated view of transition risk. 

For years, much of the debate around fossil fuels centred on the risk of stranded assets. Investors were encouraged to consider whether oil and gas investments would lose value as the world transitioned towards cleaner energy systems. 

That question remains important. But a bigger risk is now emerging. Continued investment in fossil fuel expansion risks delaying the transition itself.  

The direction of travel in the global energy system is increasingly clear. Electrification, renewable energy and energy storage continue to improve in performance and cost. Across much of the world, they now represent the most attractive source of new energy investment. Yet while the destination is becoming clearer, the speed of the transition is not predetermined. 

Fossil fuel oversupply slows the transition by weakening the economics of electrification – suppressing energy prices, delaying infrastructure turnover and extending the life of incumbent systems. Rather than acting as a stabilising, transitional energy source they become a brake on transition progress. 

A successful transition requires fossil fuels to become the marginal supplier within a growing electricity-based economy rather than remaining the primary driver of energy supply and energy costs. 

This requires new economic and financial frameworks. For decades, markets have been organised around assumptions of production growth, reserve replacement and expanding supply. Yet the priorities of a successful transition are different: investment in electrification, grids, storage and industrial transformation; realistic assessments of long-term demand; stronger scrutiny of fossil fuel capital expenditure. 

This debate is particularly relevant in the UK. Calls for expanded North Sea drilling are frequently presented in terms of an “orderly transition”. But a transition that preserves stability for incumbent energy systems and markets in the short term may prove deeply disorderly for consumers, businesses and economies over the longer term. 

The real energy-security goal is to replace dependence on globally priced fuels with domestically produced clean electricity. Once built, clean power assets have very low operating costs and are largely insulated from the geopolitical shocks that repeatedly destabilise fossil fuel markets. This is why the transition is increasingly a competitiveness and cost-of-living story as much as a climate story. 

The prize for getting this right is not just lower emissions. It is lower and more stable energy costs, greater economic resilience, improved energy security and a more competitive economy. 

At a time of mounting geopolitical uncertainty, the objective should not be to prolong dependence on an increasingly volatile energy system. It should be to accelerate the emergence of a more resilient one. 

This op-ed was first published in Responsible Investor.

The post Energy security requires managed decline of fossil fuels appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Critics argue that shareholder resolutions rarely succeeded, that companies continue to produce oil and gas, and that governments and state policies ultimately matter more than investors. 

There is truth in some of those observations. But they also miss where investor influence is most visible. 

The strongest evidence is not found in annual general meetings. It is found in capital allocation. 

Geology dictates what is in the ground. Capital expenditure dictates what comes out. 

For decades, oil companies were rewarded for growth. Investors celebrated reserve additions, production increases and large-scale project development. The assumption was simple: future demand would be higher than today, so more reserves meant more value. Over the past decade that assumption has become far less certain. 

Investors began asking different questions. What if oil demand growth slows? What if electric vehicles scale faster than expected? What if renewable power becomes cheaper? What if some reserves prove less valuable than markets assume? 

Carbon Tracker’s work on stranded assets, our analysis of whether O&G production plans aligned with IEA net-zero scenarios, helped bring these questions into the mainstream of investor debate. Divestment campaigns and broader climate narratives reinforced them.  

As confidence in future demand weakened, investors became less willing to fund growth at any cost. Demand uncertainty, a wider climate context and declining confidence in long-dated projects helped shift investor priorities towards capital discipline, a theme we set out in Carbon Tracker’s landmark report Blueprint for an Energy Transition in 2015. As investors increasingly prioritised capital discipline over growth, behaviour across the sector started to change. 

Following the shale boom, oil companies were pushed to prioritise free cash flow, dividends and share buybacks over aggressive expansion. This shift is now visible across much of the listed oil industry: reserve replacement rates have fallen, exploration spending has declined, shareholder distributions have risen, and consolidation has accelerated. Many companies increasingly resemble mature cash-generating businesses rather than growth businesses. 

In 2023 Goldman Sachs noted that since 2014, “concerns around future demand and stranded assets had contributed to a sharp reduction in oil industry resource life, which it estimated had fallen from more than 50 years in 2014 to around 23 years.”  

Whether one agrees with every aspect of that analysis is almost secondary. Even critics of climate-focused investing increasingly acknowledge that investor expectations changed. 

The question is not whether investor pressure worked. If investor pressure had no influence, we might expect companies to continue pursuing reserve growth as aggressively as they did during the commodity supercycle.  

A more searching question is:  if projects became more economic, why were fewer sanctioned? And why did reserve life continue to fall?  

The answer lies at least partly in changing investor preferences and expectations, as well as better knowledge of the risks involved. 

At the same time, the debate itself has evolved. 

Ten years ago, much of the discussion revolved around scenarios, forecasts and long-term climate targets. Critics could dismiss these as hypothetical. 

Today the transition is increasingly observable. Decreasing oil company capital expenditure is measurable. Declining reserve replacement is measurable. Rapidly increasing buybacks and dividends are measurable. And on the other side of the ledger, surging electric vehicle sales are measurable. Global-scale industrial wind and solar deployment is measurable. Battery manufacturing is growing at exponential rates. 

The argument is becoming less about what might happen and more about what is already happening.

Investor pressure by itself will rarely determine the outcome. But it helped change what investors considered valuable. And when investors change what they value, companies eventually change how they behave. 

The balance sheets and capital allocation decisions of the oil industry suggest that the process is already under way. 

That does not mean the work is finished. As transition trends become more visible, debates increasingly focus on what those trends mean for competitiveness, industrial policy, security and investment decisions. The risk is not a lack of evidence, but a failure to respond to it. 

To hear more about the evidence, read our ‘Quiet Retreat’ and our interview on the topic with Christiana Figueres on Outrage & Optimism.

The post Does Investor Pressure Matter? Look at What Oil Companies Are Actually Doing appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.