At the 80th UN General Assembly in New York, US President Donald Trump delivered a characteristically provocative speech, dismissing climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and branding the global energy transition a “green scam”.
While his remarks were widely criticised for their scientific inaccuracy and political divisiveness, they inadvertently spotlighted a deeper issue: the financialisation of climate action and the inequities embedded in the global energy transition.
Trump’s speech rejected climate science, renewable energy and international climate diplomacy. He mocked wind and solar power as “pathetic” and “too weak”, claiming they are unreliable and overly subsidised. He also reiterated his disdain for the Paris Agreement, arguing that the US was unfairly burdened with financial commitments, even though the accord allows countries to set their own targets and contributions.
Science versus rhetoric
Yet the science is unequivocal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that human activity, primarily fossil fuel combustion, is driving global warming. The impacts are not theoretical: rising sea levels, intensifying heatwaves and extreme weather events are already devastating communities worldwide.
While Trump’s rhetoric may be scientifically flawed, his critique of the economic dimensions of climate action touches on a legitimate concern. Though necessary, the global energy transition is shaped by financial interests. Carbon markets, green bonds and environmental, social & governance investment frameworks have turned climate action into a lucrative sector for investors and corporations.
Investment surges, but gaps remain
According to the International Energy Agency, global energy investment is projected to reach $3.3-trillion this year, with $2.2-trillion going to clean energy technologies, double the investment in fossil fuels ($1.1-trillion). This includes renewables, nuclear, grids, battery storage and electrification. Yet this surge in investment is not evenly distributed. Developing economies, especially in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America, face significant investment gaps.
In many instances transitions are “unjust”, displacing workers, burdening low-income communities with higher energy costs, and prioritising profit over people. Developing nations, particularly in Africa, are pressured to adopt green technologies while grappling with energy poverty and underdevelopment. Meanwhile, fossil fuel subsidies persist in wealthy nations.
China’s dual energy strategy
Trump also accused China of hypocrisy by manufacturing wind turbines for export while relying heavily on coal and gas domestically. He claimed China has “very few wind farms”, a statement that is demonstrably false. China leads the world in installed wind and solar capacity, with more than 1,400GW of combined capacity as of mid-2025. Wind and solar now generate more electricity than all other clean sources combined, including nuclear and hydro.
However, China’s reserve margin, the buffer between electricity supply and peak demand, is relatively low. This has necessitated continued investment in coal, gas and nuclear to ensure grid stability. Despite the addition of renewables, the need for dispatchable power remains.
China’s energy strategy has been pragmatic, electrifying industry and transport at scale while investing in battery storage and grid infrastructure. The country accounts for 31% of global clean energy investment and 75% of clean energy patent applications. This dual industrial approach and rapid addition of renewable energy alongside fossil fuels reflects the complexity of transitioning a huge, energy-intensive economy.
The tension between science and economics
Trump’s remarks at the General Assembly may have been designed to provoke, but they inadvertently highlight a critical tension in global climate politics: the gap between climate science and climate economics. While climate change is real and urgent, the way the transition is being monetised is a legitimate concern.
The challenge is not whether to transition, but how. A just energy transition must prioritise affordability, access and fairness, not just profitability. Without scale and pragmatism the energy transition risks becoming another arena for exploitation rather than transformation — and that is the scam.
• Mashele, an energy economist, is a member of the board of the National Transmission Company of SA.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.