The Crusade of the Donald Trump administration against the neutrality of emissions of the energy sector also seems to attack all market criteria and against the technological avant -garde. The return of the old economy, a term coined by Jeff Curry, Chief Strata of Goldman Sachs, to alert a new battle of the fossil industry and its lobbies To control the post-covid cycle and bury the 2020-21 splendor biennium of sustainable and ethical investments, it has had an effect on the White House. And with it, any attempt to achieve zero net emissions of CO2, branded as one more element of the movement Wokewill be fought by the Trump administration.
Although the omens are not flattering and come from private investigations and analysis such as the one that Wong of Rui has just revealed, head of the Sustainability GIC Fund Sustainability Office (Government Investment Corporation) of Singapore. In a RUI report, a 4 billion dollars -chivalent to the GDP of Germany or Japan – the businesses that would illuminate the climatic adaptation in 2050. The year in which the neutrality of emissions should be reached, according to the Paris Agreements, with a rebound in the overall temperature of the planet of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to the CO2 levels prior to the industrial revolution.
But the diagnosis goes further. From Rui ensures that the transition to zero net emissions “offers investment opportunities in sectors ranging from technology for fire extinction to flood insurance […] and would identify new key industries ”in the roadmaps to sustainability”, as the efforts are advanced to reduce greenhouse gases “and measures are implemented to” protect assets against the impacts of meteorological catastrophes. ” The GIC manages around 800,000 million dollars of heritage and occupies the seventh place in the ranking of higher state portfolios that heads the Norwegian sovereign fund – just behind the Saudi – and that Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute (SWFI) prepares.
The study, which has also had the participation of the American consultant Bain & Co, points out that companies that offer adaptation solutions are “emerging as a complementary and increasingly attractive investment part.” Despite the rejection that awakens the Capital ESG in the Trump administration. To the point of elevating exponentially throughout the next decades the billion sales currently associated with specific technologies to combat concrete aspects caused by climate change. Or catapult to the 9 billion dollars in the Ecuador of the century the combined value of the debt and the capital of the companies that offer catalogs of goods and services to adapt to the inclement inclementians of the atmosphere.
Energy third change in the US
Although in this crossroads of roads in which the energy transition is found due to the changes in the specific incentives, subsidies and aids that Joe Biden’s mandate directed to the renewable sources and now Trump dedicates to the fossil industry, the Achilles heel remains the low contribution of the banks to the green finances.
This is confirmed by JP Morgan Chase, another sign of admission of the private and investor sector, which warns that the financing promoted by the energy transition is insufficient and only covers the sixth part of the needs planned by 2030, the first large scale on the road map towards the net net emissions. “We are not investing what the Green Industrial Reconversion claims despite the investor and business benefits of encouraging protection against climatic crises,” says a note to customers signed by the director of the Climate Advice of the American Investment Bank.
The adaptation -or process of adapting assets to climatic catastrophes, from fires to floods or droughts, among others -has acquired a new urgency because the planet is heading towards a heating that practically doubles the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius, says Sarah Kapnick, climate scientist hired to advise JP Morgan investors: JP Morgan: “I was always surprised by the lack of Green Finance”, A circumstance that blames“ the static thought that has invaded us, to that desire to maintain the status quo of each one, which makes humanity become blind to the future, ”he says in an interview in Bloomberg.
In his opinion, invest in companies that are aware and attentive to these risks – prisoner – “has unquestionable financial implications.” Investment portfolios can not only limit losses, but also to obtain exorbitant profitability, points, in line with the entity’s report.
Other valuations such as those of the World Economic Forum (Wef), a managing institution of the Davos forum, also result in this idea. If the climatic adaptation had the geopolitical, economic, business and financial impulse appropriate, “it can generate a return of capital in a long list of sectors of up to 43 dollars for each dollar invested”, which is equivalent to a share of profits of 4000%.
Especially if, in parallel, credibility is granted to the reduction of the cost of betting on the energy transition due to the acceleration of technologies focused on the reduction of polluting emissions, to the collection of CO2 of the atmosphere or the proliferation and channeling of sustainable finances. A recent analysis of The Economist He assures that the business bill “is far from the 12 annual billions” that has been contemplated in recent years and “approaches the 3 billion”, which would call into question the maximum Trumpist that climate change “damages Americans and costs a fortune.”
But, far from amilasting or leaving some loaf of coincidence with the scientific evidence of the climate clock, the Trump administration has undertaken a crusade against Europe, which identifies as a sustainability space Woke. Not only for threatening tariffs for their opinion, environmental and restrictive norms that dominate the community heritage, but for trying to cut the propensity to the Capital ESG of European capital markets or by launching a full -fledged geopolitical onslaught to paralyze the EU Green Deal.
A ‘Trojan horse’ in the east European
To do this, the Republican president has sent the east of the European, the most critical partners with the European green agenda and where decades that emerged the ultra -right groups that encourage the social protests of the old continent against the environmental directives, to Chris Wright, his secretary of energy, who has not hesitated to act as a ‘horse of Troy’. Energy ”of the United States and refuse to travel through the European roadmap towards climate neutrality.
Wright argued that the approach to Western Europe in the field of climatic policies “is wrong”, said that their eastern latitudes “should choose a different path” and did not have the slightest repair to emphasize that “natural gas and nuclear energy are the most effective climatic solutions.” In the same way that he admitted that the US “promotes its energy products” and that the “desire of President Trump” is that Europe “acquires more American energy and services of American companies” such as Westinghouse Electric and Bechtel Group, with newly extended contracts to build the first nuclear power plant in Poland and expansive plans to develop future atomic energy facilities in the region.
Wright’s statements occurred precisely in Warsaw, in a business forum attended by large delegations of Eastern European partners. “Economic studies on climate change admit that the objective of zero net emissions for 2050 is absolutely wrong,” he said.
The thesis of the American fearful head is not based on any scientific basis. Nor, despite the forcefulness of its rhetoric, follow the designs of the market. Another capital firm, Jefferies, has just published another report, which subscribes its investment lead up to 21.1%. The analysis of this manager extracts data from 300 companies linked to different sectors of activity.
Green financing, still to mature
Despite this, 90% of global green financing is concentrated in technological mitigation solutions, they explain in JP Morgan. Kapnick attracts attention to the increasingly exceptional warning of investment banks by finding sustainable formulas in their wallets at a crucial moment in which the Trump administration frequently mocks Biden’s green policy while making news about extreme meteorological inclemencies usual. “From the perspective of the investor, choosing companies prepared for climate change is a strategic decision that reduces the volatility of losses and that can create trends” in markets.
Not to mention it, the scientist enrolled in JP Morgan alluded to Blackrock and other great managers that have reduced their exposure to ESG capitals and the surprising impulse that these investments recorded in 2024, in which they reached 29.86 billion, similar value to the US GDP, according to the data of predence Research, and touching the objective of 2030. Global amount was 25.13 billion, also above the forecasts for the stimulus of the sub -admonities in the US and the greatest green awareness in Europe.
McKinsey delves into this decalage. Faced with ESG investments, those for the 377 signatures with the greatest sustainable value, according to their stock market capitalization, barely reached 683,000 million dollars between 2019 and 2023, although they multiplied by six against the preceding five years. This financing, which includes disbursements in climatic technology, R&D D+Iy Risk Capital, encompasses 12 categories of climatic technologies capable of reducing up to 90% of emissions, say their experts.
#fight #climate #change #account #generate #billion #dollars #businesses
