Not everything is Trump’s fault

Many people responsible for decisions that would be made by different sectors of society use US President Donald Trump as an excuse — simplifying extremely complex issues. The withdrawal of Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America from the Net-Zero Alliance is one of the most recent examples that illustrate this practice.

The time to reach the goal of zero emissions is decreasing rapidly, despite the acceleration of investments in energy transition, and this has been evident for some years now. In order to achieve a carbon-neutral global energy system, in addition to the amount of additional investment required being very high, new technologies will need to become competitive and commercial, and many are still at laboratory scale.

Another issue to consider is the increase in production coast. By putting a price on carbon, there is a risk of going against a just transition, placing a greater burden on less favored regions and populations, in addition to channeling resources that urgently need to be allocated to adaptation measures in countries that are already suffering from the harmful effects of climate change.

Considering that, in 2050, the population is expected to reach 9 billion, with 70% living in cities, some of which don’t even exist yet, the expressive increase in demand for energy and an urban infrastructure becomes clear, causing the pavement and civil construction sector to grow considerably, emitting even more carbon.

Although the world is facing an alarming scenario due to climate change, a consequence of human actions, there is no medium-term solution that does not imply a considerable loss for the global economy, especially for developing countries. Difficult choices will be necessary in the attempt to seek climate justice, but they need to be debated with transparency and honesty.

The recent withdrawal of some banks from the Net-Zero Alliance is due to other reasons, and not political pressure, as it has been reported. It will simply not be possible to achieve neutrality by 2050, since the demand for fossil fuels continues to grow, not only because of the increase in the world’s need for energy, but also because there are still no mature substitutes for these sources of energy and raw materials.

Much has been done and should be encouraged in the search for reducing emissions, but always considering the cost it implies for society as a whole. Sectors such as aviation, maritime transport and heavy industries, known as hard to abate, do not yet have commercial technologies that use another type of energy source. It is also necessary to take into account that there is a base of assets that will still be within their lifespan in 2050, especially in emerging countries, and promoting a retrofit in their infrastructures would bring a high cost to their economies, which would not be fair.

This is not merely a matter of political will, but of extremely difficult decisions, with a significant burden on the economies of less developed countries, which are penalized both by the impacts of rising temperatures and by the increased cost of a carbon-neutral economy.

We must understand President Trump’s histrionic and denialist stance as a dangerous consequence of the choices made, not their cause.

Article published in the newspaper O Globo on January 26th of 2025.