It wasn’t long ago that the world’s major banks, including Macquarie, were collectively mobilising to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
In April 2021, now Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). By the time COP21 rolled around in November that year, around 450 financial institutions representing $130 trillion in assets were committed to net zero.
Mark Carney recognised this landmark agreement saying: “We now have the essential plumbing in place to move climate change from the fringes to the forefront of finance so that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”
At the front of this wave was the Macquarie Group.
While Australia was coming under fire for the Morrison government’s lack of climate ambition at COP26 in Glasgow, Macquarie’s CEO, Shemara Wikramanayake, was being recognised as a ‘de facto leader’ of Australia at the UN climate change conference.
Wikramanayake’s strong advocacy at the UN climate change conferences earned her recognition as one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential climate leaders in business in 2023, remarking “there’s just a lot of change we need to do to stop our planet from burning.”
Which makes Macquarie’s climate backflip over the last 18 months all the more extraordinary, raising questions about whether the Group was genuinely committed to the Paris Agreement or simply being politically expedient.
Early last year after Trump’s re-election, Macquarie followed the lead of major US banks and rushed to exit the United Nations-convened Net-Zero Banking Alliance.
Macquarie also emerged as a key financial backer of one of Australia’s biggest proposed gas fracking developments, the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory.
While Australia’s big four banks ruled out directly financing new oil and gas fields, Macquarie remained steadfast in backing new projects. The Group’s finance for oil and gas skyrocketed while the big four cut funding for fossil fuels.
Over 180 shareholders issued Macquarie a please explain resolution at its 2025 AGM, requesting the company disclose how it assesses its fossil fuel finance for alignment with its Paris commitments. The resolution received a record 35.2% vote in favour, the highest support for a climate-focused resolution at an Australian bank.
But Macquarie’s behaviour has worsened in the past year.
One of the biggest threats to the goals of the Paris Agreement is the unprecedented wave of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity unfolding.
Driven by the United States, more new LNG capacity reached a final investment decision in 2025 than any other year in history. 2026 is forecast to top that record, according to LSEG’s LNG Outlook.
Macquarie is fronting this gas expansion in a variety of financial roles. The Group has signed 15 and 20 year ‘offtake’ agreements with gas projects yet to reach final investment decision in the US and Mexico, betting on long-term demand increases.
Macquarie is reportedly acting as financial advisor for a giant new LNG project in Alaska, according to Green Street Infrastructure, which is one of the most costly and damaging for the climate in US history.
Then there’s the Beetaloo Basin. Beetaloo is enormous, touted by gas companies as holding between 200–500 trillion cubic feet of gas, rivalling the biggest reserves in the world.
Already, at least four existing and prospective LNG projects in the Northern Territory and Queensland (Gladstone LNG, Darwin LNG, NTLNG and Ichthys) have indicated they want to export Beetaloo gas.
Macquarie is a major lender to the main fracking companies, Beetaloo Energy and Tamboran Resources. When these two companies have needed more capital to realise their fracking fantasies, Macquarie has been happy to oblige.
For all of these new projects to be successful, LNG consumption would be aligned with catastrophic warming scenarios in the 2.5-2.9°C range, according to data from the IEA and LSEG.
This endless support for gas expansion is less like a financial institution committed to the Paris Agreement and more like the actions of a bullish fossil fuel company.
Facing another climate resolution and mounting criticism from shareholders for its backing of fossil fuel expansion, Macquarie issued an extraordinary justification to its shareholders last week.
Macquarie made reference to the International Energy Agency’s ‘STEPS’ (2.5°C) and ‘CPS’ (2.9°C) scenarios to imply that its current behaviour is justified, because under these scenarios “new, yet-to-approve conventional oil and gas projects are needed.”
These scenarios will result in catastrophic warming levels, and are nowhere near the Paris goals Macquarie has committed to support.
Macquarie claims pursuing a 1.5°C-aligned pathway will lead to energy shortages but this is a false binary: presenting a 2.5-3°C pathway as the only alternative to avoid this scenario. This rationale is completely unsubstantiated.
Ignoring the enormous gap between 1.5°C and 2.5°C and that every fraction of a degree matters, so much LNG capacity is coming online in the coming years that experts are forecasting a glut, where supply exceeds demand.
Conversely to Macquarie’s warning, it is reliance on fossil fuel imports often causing energy shortages in times of crisis, as has been demonstrated by the shocks caused by the recent wars in Iran and Ukraine.
The volatility of LNG prices has pushed importing countries like Pakistan to prioritise solar and battery uptake for energy security, slashing LNG imports. Pakistan’s Petroleum Minister said his country “doesn’t see any space for LNG, as shipments remain too expensive.”
Far from advocating for the STEPS or CPS scenarios, the IEA issued a stern warning against them in the same World Energy Outlook Macquarie referenced, while reiterating that pathways to avoid ending up in these positions are “well understood” and “in many cases, cost effective.”
These justifications are illuminating for how Macquarie views climate change. Unsubstantiated and misleading claims of energy shortages are presented as the most fearful option, while the catastrophic economic, social and environmental consequences of 2.5-3°C of warming don’t rate a mention.
Macquarie’s investors face a crucial vote at its upcoming AGM – an opportunity to remind the ‘Millionaire’s Factory’ that it is far more cost effective to invest in mitigation pathways aligned with the Paris Agreement than deal with the immense costs resulting from failure.
Kyle Robertson is head of research at Market Forces
