Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders, alumni, and approved guests only
Campus open to active affiliate Columbia University ID (CUID) holders and approved guests only.
Columbia students, faculty, and staff can use the guest registration portal to register up to two same-day guests. Alumni can use the portal to register for campus same-day access as well. Learn more below.
This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors’ experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University’s usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice.
Industrial policy, supply chain security, and economic competitiveness are central to how we think about clean energy deployment. As the Trump administration pulls back federal support for the...
Join us for a virtual information session focused on career pathways at the United Nations.
Event
About Us
We are the premier hub and policy institution for global energy thought leadership. Energy impacts every element of our lives, and our trusted fact-based research informs the decisions that affect all of us.
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author(s). It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece may be subject to further revision.
Contributions to SIPA for the benefit of CGEP are general use gifts, which gives the Center discretion in how it allocates these funds. More information is available here. Rare cases of sponsored projects are clearly indicated.
In September, the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University SIPA hosted—and participated in—a variety of conversations connected to Climate Week NYC, which takes place concurrently with High-Level Week of the United Nations General Assembly. CGEP scholars met with a wide range of officials from the United States government—including members of Congress—and the European Union, private sector stakeholders, and members of civil society organizations.
Throughout meetings and events—including CGEP’s fireside chats with COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and US Representative Sean Casten, and panel discussions with representatives of numerous governments, companies, and organizations—key themes emerged that are defining the current conversations on the upcoming COP30 climate negotiations in Belém, Brazil; and on the future of global energy and climate policy in the face of geopolitical competition, economic fragmentation, and the world’s changing climate. Scholars engaged on the enormous global gap in climate finance and how to close it; the importance of securing critical mineral supply chains; and the use of new technologies for carbon management.
Below are reflections from CGEP scholars on some of the standout issues of the day during this year’s Climate Week.
Climate Week NYC came at a time of growing bluster and tension on the world stage, and the discussions around global energy and climate were not immune from this trend. The week’s events saw rising frictions as governments, corporations, and organizations rethink their decarbonization strategies amid a rapidly shifting global energy outlook and an accelerating climate crisis. At convenings of environmental groups — which have long been pushing for more ambitious climate policies to phase out fossil fuels — more progressive voices called for global wealth taxes as a form of climate finance to the Global South and for holding high-emitting countries legally accountable for climate damages. At convenings of energy companies and advanced economy governments — many of which made bold decarbonization commitments just a few years ago — a focus on energy security, dwindling fiscal space, the weaponization of energy, and the race to lead in AI cast a sober light on the future of emission reductions. Whereas prominent climate advocates called for “evil” fossil fuel companies to increasingly bear the political blame for the impacts of climate change, energy company CEOs seated across the table called for deregulation to allow for increased production of “cheaper” and “more stable” fossil fuels.
The same divided splitscreen characterized the halls of the United Nations. On one side, UN Secretary General Antonio Gueterres, in a Climate Summit that he hosted, declared that “the science demands action. The law commands it. The economics compel it. And people are calling for it.” On the other, US President Donald Trump, in an address to the General Assembly, decried UN officials’ past warnings about future climate catastrophes, which he said “were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.” He presented an alternative vision, encouraging countries to abandon climate policies, embrace more oil and coal for energy use, and import these resources from the United States specifically. Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the dissonance head-on in video remarks at the Climate Summit when he said, “Green and low-carbon transition is the trend of our time. While some country is [sic] acting against it, the international community should stay focused on the right direction.” Of course, whereas President Trump is positioning the US as a long-term exporter of fossil fuels, Chinese supply chains stand to benefit greatly from a global trend towards low-carbon technologies. From January through July 2025, the US sold $80 billion in oil and gas exports, while China sold $120 billion in clean technologies.
Given the growing disconnect and blame, other events were dedicated to new topics that reflect growing recognition of the grim reality of a rapidly warming world. These include revising temperature goals once global average temperatures surpass 1.5°C; the promise and peril of climate intervention technologies; climate-induced risks to the financial system, especially rapidly rising insurance premiums; and the need for national militaries to be better positioned to respond to growing instability exacerbated by climate extremes.
As climate shocks become more intense and countries break from past pledges by embracing a more fossil fueled future, this year’s Climate Week demonstrated that the global politics of climate and the energy transition are becoming more combustible on all sides.
China’s new climate commitments for 2035, announced by President Xi Jinping at the UN’s summit during Climate Week NYC on September 24, were very conservative, even considering the government’s tendency to under-promise and over-deliver. Beijing’s pledge to reduce economywide net greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10 percent from peak levels by 2035 falls far short of the 30 percent reduction required to align with the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit the rise in global temperature to well below 2°C. It could instead put the world on a trajectory of 3°C warming … or even higher.
Why wasn’t China’s climate pledge more ambitious?
Hypothesis 1: Beijing is concerned that China’s emissions may continue to rise. When Xi revealed China’s emissions reduction goal, he did not specify when China’s emissions are likely to peak or at what level. This omission suggests that Beijing may expect further emissions growth. China’s booming coal-to-chemicals industry is one potential culprit. Its emissions are increasing rapidly, and if planned capacity additions are made, China’s goal of peaking emissions before 2030 would be more difficult to achieve.
Hypothesis 2: Beijing wants to avoid projecting weakness in China’s economy. Since faster economic growth can imply higher emissions, one explanation for China’s conservative target is that Beijing wants to signal that the prospects for China’s economy are brighter than someanalyses contend.
Hypothesis 3: The United States’s retreat from climate leadership made it easier for China to set less aggressive goals. President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States would (again) withdraw from the Paris Agreement meant US officials were not pushing China to set bold climate goals. Any commitments look relatively good when compared to the United States’s absence. Xi himself invited this comparison when he expressed support for the Paris Agreement and criticized “some country” for “acting against” the trend of combatting climate change.
Hypothesis 4: The European Union’s deferral of its updated climate pledge also eased pressure on Beijing. Chinese officials would have known before Xi unveiled China’s new goals on September 24 that the EU intended to delay submission of its new climate commitment. They also would have known that divisions among EU member countries raised questions about how ambitious the final target will be. Consequently, Chinese officials may have assessed they could submit softer goals without too much criticism from Europe, an assertion supported by Beijing’s strong rebuke of the EU climate commissioner’s statement that China’s new goal is disappointing.
Hypothesis 5: China knew that even a low target would only receive muted criticism from much of the world. China is increasingly economically and politically important to a broad swath of countries around the world, including the Global South. This increasing clout has helped to mute criticisms of China. This phenomenon—when combined with hypotheses 3 and 4—could have led China to believe it could get away with a conservative target. Such a phenomenon signals a direct challenge to the Paris Agreement’s central thesis that all countries should urge each other to do more.
Climate Week NYC served as a temperature check―both literally and figuratively―on where the world stands in the lead-up to the COP30 UN climate change conference in Brazil next month. Designated as an “Implementation COP,” Brazil aims to use the power of its presidency to shift the world from ambition to implementing the many commitments made regarding the energy transition, climate finance for developing nations, protecting nature and biodiversity, and building infrastructure resiliency for climate adaptation.
Not surprisingly, Brazilian delegates were present at various events covering finance during Climate Week. With Brazil signing a law in December to create a regulated carbon market, it was clear from various meetings that the country is serious about the task of fully operationalizing the Paris Agreement’s Article 6―which covers bilateral trading between countries and creates a UN-supervised global carbon market―at the upcoming COP. Some of the forums also covered sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices and nature-based projects, where the country has considerable experience.
Another interesting takeaway from Climate Week was that the world is moving ahead with the decarbonization and sustainability agenda, with or without an assenting US administration. A notable example is the activities of the Sustainable Business COP (SB COP), a global initiative designed to enable private sector contributions to COP negotiations with actionable recommendations. SB COP organized convenings and presented case studies at Climate Week around eight working groups, including the energy transition, transition finance and investment, the bio-economy, and nature-based solutions.
Another example of the world moving ahead with climate goals was the high level of interest demonstrated by oil and gas companies and financial actors on the topic of financing methane abatement. Clearly, oil and gas companies are looking beyond the current US administration as they consider ways to lower their emission intensity, and US financial institutions are exploring ways to finance this decarbonization vector in the oil and gas sector. Decarbonization of shipping fuels also garnered considerable interest ahead of formal adoption in October of the Net-Zero Shipping Framework.
Financing for climate adaptation also received much attention at Climate Week. Innovative instruments, such as catastrophe bonds and resilience bonds, were discussed in front of large, engaged audiences. While this is an area that often interests emerging and developing economies, US states and municipalities now appear to be actively seeking funding sources and instruments to finance climate adaptation as they feel the impacts of climate change. This is perhaps a less publicized area in which the lack of policy support from the White House has not stopped progress.
But moving past current policies is not easy for other industries. Some investors in climate and carbon tech companies, particularly startups, highlighted at Climate Week the adverse impact of Trump’s policies in their space. They not only discussed the accelerating phase-out and curtailment of some Inflation Reduction Act tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but also the overall policy environment, which is marked with such a high level of uncertainty that it complicates investment decision-making.
One area of Trump administration policies receiving praise was the proactive approach to encouraging investments in critical minerals, particularly by helping lower the price volatility of metals and minerals via floor pricing and offtake agreements.
Overall, the topic of energy infrastructure financing continues to draw interest and engagement at various forums, given the vast investment needed to meet the projected increase in energy demand both in the US and internationally. Climate Week NYC validated this observation.
Data centers were a hot topic at Climate Week NYC, for good reason. Investment in data centers is booming. Several forecasts project that trillions of dollars will be spent on data centers and related infrastructure in the years ahead.[1] These investments are fueled by the explosive growth in attention to artificial intelligence (AI), as well as data centers’ central role in much of the modern economy, including in e-commerce, email systems, video streaming and more.
The energy implications of the data center construction boom are enormous. Data center power demand is straining electric grids in many locations, and AI tools are starting to transform electric grids and the energy sector more broadly. The data center construction boom also has growing implications for geopolitics and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as water use in many regions.
Climate Week discussions on data centers focused on several topics, including the following:
The months and years ahead will be critical for data center sustainability. Many decisions with respect to the construction and operation of data centers will have lasting impacts.
As highlighted in the ICEF Sustainable Data Centers Roadmap released yesterday, the energy and environmental impacts of data centers vary dramatically depending on their siting, design, management and other factors.
Well-located and well-managed data centers can help accelerate deployment of low-carbon power by serving as anchor customers for innovative clean energy technologies, de-risking investments in renewables projects and enabling grid flexibility.
Poorly located and poorly managed data centers can have significant negative energy and environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, and water stress in surrounding areas.
Data center energy use and water use are closely related. When a data center draws significant power from water-intensive generation sources, such as coal or nuclear power plants, the data center’s indirect (off-site) water use often exceeds its on-site water use. (This week’s AI, Energy and Climate Podcast explores data center water use in depth.)
The profile of these topics will grow in the months and years ahead, in the United States and around the world. There is a growing disconnect between national, state and provincial policies, which often encourage data center construction for strategic and economic reasons, and local opposition to data centers, which is surging in many locations. Smart policies will be key to realizing the many benefits of data centers while managing their risks.
This year’s Climate Week NYC evinced a shift in tone around energy development in the Global South, from problem spotting to showcasing solutions. A standout headline was the announcement of seventeen more African countries unveiling their National Energy Compacts as part of Mission 300 — a joint effort led by the World Bank and African Development Bank to connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030. These countries joined the first cohort of twelve countries that announced their compacts during the Mission 300 kick-off in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania in January 2025.
Several significant financial announcements followed. Acumen announced a $250 million fund to electrify the hardest to reach communities in Africa. UN Energy and Sustainable Energy for All reported surpassing USD 1.6 trillion in cumulative finance and investment commitments through the UN Energy Compacts, with USD 284 billion already mobilized to date. Although financial commitments have not always translated to investments in the past, the country-led compacts stand out for their data-driven targets and detailed implementation strategies, creating clearer pathways for investors to support electrification projects.
Less visible, but equally critical, was the question of how to pair access expansion with industrial growth. In a conversation hosted by Eurasia Group, industry leaders highlighted how in many African countries increased demand for localization of value addition and manufacturing is bumping up against inadequate grid capacity. The panelists stressed that without parallel investments in energy infrastructure that can bring down the cost of reliable industrial power supply, localization of value chains will continue to be constrained.
These themes were echoed in a high-level roundtable on accelerating the energy transition in the global south co-hosted by the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), the Council on Energy Environment and Water (CEEW), and the Center for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP). Participants emphasized two points. First, African countries cannot afford to sequence electricity system development and industrialization — both must advance together. Indeed, industrial policies can be anchored in local development and job creation strategies. Second, giant financing gaps need to be broken down into targeted investment plays with appropriate de-risking strategies — something that the detailed energy compacts can enable.
Overall, the tone of this year’s Climate Week conversations on energy for development reflected a growing sense of excitement about innovations and headway on the ground. Amid deepening climate uncertainty, rising geopolitical tensions, and a shifting financing landscape, stories of progress from the Global South can serve as proven models for infusing new capital into energy for development programs and help generate momentum toward Belém and beyond.
A rash of announcements were made leading up to Climate Week NYC on new carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal projects across Canada, China, Europe, and Japan. And the tenor at Climate Week seemed cautiously optimistic about overall carbon management, everywhere except the United States.
Meanwhile, the EU is increasing supportive policy and regulatory infrastructure both at the federal and nation-state level. And China has more than 125 carbon management projects in the pipeline, and is investing billions into the entire value chain. This dynamic is particularly important for carbon dioxide removal since it is a technology in its infancy that, in order to grow, will need early investment from both industry and government. The feeling and facts on the ground show that this development is increasingly happening outside the United States.
One carbon management issue that encouraged optimism among some Climate Week participants was around natural gas CCS for the power sector. Its demand by hyperscaler data centers is real, and such projects are developing. It appears in some cases that industry is stepping up its leadership in advancing clean energy technologies just as the US government relinquishes it. The artificial intelligence phenomenon, for example, is showing how both hyperscalers and companies within the natural gas CCS value chain are rising to the opportunity to lead by deploying the technology in the field, regardless of government support.
It was clear from presentations and conversations at Climate Week that participants seem hopeful about potential progress with nuclear energy and natural gas, while most other energy technologies are feeling the crunch of administrative discontinuity. Carbon management is not a priority in the US at the moment, despite bipartisan congressional support, industry capacity, and available capital.
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have not only the world's lowest costs for oil and gas production but also the lowest costs for electricity generated from renewable energy sources.
World leaders are meeting in New York this month at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to discuss the state of global ambition on climate change.
The US imposed tariffs of 50 percent on about half of Indian exports on August 27, following a Trump administration executive order targeting the country for its continued imports of discounted Russian oil.
