Trump's African climate injustice

The world has seen this movie before. The U.S. shifts gears on climate policy, and developing nations—especially in Africa—pay the price. But under Trump, it’s not just a shift. It’s a full spin turn.

In his wave of policy rollbacks, Trump’s withdrawal from major global climate initiatives has dealt a devastating blow to Africa’s climate resilience. The continent, already on the frontline of global warming, faces rising temperatures, worsening droughts, and increasingly destructive storms—all while contributing a fraction of the emissions that fuel the crisis.

Climate takes a back seat—when it should be in the front row

Climate change should be at the top of every global agenda. Extreme weather events are accelerating, economies are being disrupted, and food security is under threat. But instead, it’s slipping further down the priority list. Geopolitical tensions, economic slowdowns, and energy security concerns are pushing climate finance and policy into the background.

The trend is even more pronounced in Africa, where the climate agenda will only advance if it makes financial and economic sense in the short term. No government is going to prioritize green energy if fossil fuels remain the cheaper, more accessible option. The business case has to be crystal clear—and it isn’t yet.

Africa’s climate reality: paying for others’ pollution

Africa is responsible for less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., China, and the EU are responsible for most of the rest. Yet, African nations bear the brunt of rising temperatures - Africa has been warming 27% faster than the global average, The Sahel is turning to desert, and droughts are killing crops in East Africa. The continent is also facing more and more deadly flood and storms - cyclones like Idai and Kenneth have left thousands dead and displaced millions in Mozambique and Madagascar.

Already a leading cause of internal migration, climate change could force up to 86 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa to migrate within their countries by 2050 (World Bank, 2021). Millions are at risk of poverty and food insecurity due to climate shocks (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2022).

But here’s the trade paradox: Africa’s role in global emissions is more complicated than just production. According to OECD data, African economies export emissions-intensive goods but also import high-carbon products—a classic example of the Trade in Value Added (TiVA) emissions problem.

• Africa is a net exporter of emissions-intensive goods like raw materials, metals, and agricultural products. These emissions count toward Africa’s production footprint, even though they fuel industries abroad.

• Africa is a net importer of high-carbon products, such as finished industrial goods and transport equipment, embedding foreign emissions in its economy.

  
  

So, when African leaders demand climate finance, they’re not just talking about adaptation. They’re pointing out a system where rich nations have outsourced pollution to poorer ones—and then refuse to pay for the damage.

Here’s what the Trump presidency is costing climate change in Africa:

The climate fund that vanished overnight

First, there’s the Loss and Damage Fund, a critical mechanism established at COP28 in 2023 to compensate developing countries for irreversible climate damage. Think floods, droughts, and rising sea levels—disasters largely caused by the world’s biggest polluters.

The U.S. had pledged $17.5 million—a token amount given its role as the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. But last week, Trump pulled out completely. No money. No accountability. No support for the countries paying the price for America’s emissions.

The message he delivered was crystal clear: You’re on your own.

Africa’s renewable transition? not so fast

Then there’s the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP)—a $45 billion initiative meant to help developing countries move from coal to renewables.

South Africa—already under fire from Trump—was one of the biggest recipients, using JETP funds to pivot towards clean energy while protecting jobs. But with the U.S. now backing out, the program is on shaky ground. South Africa’s transition risks stalling.

Without strong financial backing from major economies, coal becomes the default option again—a devastating setback for Africa’s green energy ambitions, to “leapfrog” the fossil fuel dependent economies of the West. But we are back in the “oil, oil, oil”, “dig, dig, dig” era.

The harsh reality? Without strong financial backing, Africa’s green transition slows down. And when that happens, coal wins—not because it’s better, but because it’s still cheaper in the short term.

This isn’t just about funding. It’s about momentum. The U.S. walking away raises a dangerous question: Which of the world’s leading economic powers will be next to abandon climate commitments?

The shrinking private sector: a missing lifeline

Africa’s transition to clean energy is being held back by a lack of private sector investment, and the numbers tell a stark story. Between 2020 and 2030, an estimated $2.8 trillion is required for African nations to meet their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—the commitments made under the Paris Agreement. However, African governments have only committed $26.4 billion annually, covering just 10% of the needed financing. The rest must come from international donors, development banks, and—crucially—the private sector.

But so far, the private sector is not stepping up.

• The business case for green investment in Africa is unclear. Many investors remain hesitant due to uncertain returns and high perceived risks associated with renewable energy and climate adaptation projects.

• Green projects struggle with financing because African economies are often seen as high-risk investment destinations, limiting access to capital.

• Global economic uncertainty is shrinking available private capital for climate initiatives. Investors are increasingly risk-averse, preferring short-term gains in traditional sectors like fossil fuels over long-term commitments to clean energy.

  
  

The consequences are straightforward: without sufficient public or private funding to bridge the climate finance gap, fossil fuels remain the default option.

Unlocking private capital: a $100 billion opportunity

Despite these challenges, investment opportunities exist—they just need the right financial mechanisms and incentives. According to the UNDP Africa Investment Insights Report, there are 207 investable climate-related projects across 11 sectors and 42 industries in 15 African countries. These projects, spanning infrastructure, renewable energy, and sustainable food production, could deliver 15-20% returns—but they remain largely untapped.

One of the biggest issues is that 60% of these opportunities require public support to de-risk investments. Blended finance—where public and private capital are pooled together—could help unlock these funds. Instruments like green and blue bonds and high-integrity carbon markets also offer promising ways to channel funding into Africa’s green transition.

However, as of 2022, the private sector contributed only 14% (or $4.2 billion) of total climate finance on the continent—far lower than in other regions. Without greater participation from businesses, Africa risks being locked into a fossil-fuel-dependent future despite having some of the world’s largest renewable energy potential.

Continental co-ordination is key

To change this trajectory, governments, financial institutions, and international partners must work together to:

• Create de-risking mechanisms: Governments must provide policy stability, tax incentives, and guarantees that encourage private investment in renewables.

• Scale up blended finance models: Combining public funds with private capital can help mitigate investment risks and attract foreign investors.

• Develop regional value chains: Africa’s intra-regional trade in clean energy technology is weakly developed, making countries more dependent on high-emission imports from Europe and Asia. Strengthening these value chains could reduce reliance on foreign emissions while boosting domestic industries.

  
  

If Africa is to meet its climate goals and transition to a clean, sustainable economy, private capital must play a far greater role. Without it, the continent will remain trapped in a high-carbon status quo, not because of a lack of ambition—but because of a lack of investment.

The solutions exist. The question is whether the world is willing to act.

Africa reacts: “A Direct Threat” (for some?)

African leaders aren’t staying silent. The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change has called the U.S. withdrawal a “direct threat” to global climate efforts. And they’re right—at least for countries already facing the brunt of climate disasters.

For nations like Mozambique, Kenya, and Malawi, where cyclones, droughts, and floods are becoming more frequent and devastating, the loss of climate finance is catastrophic. Leaders from these countries have been vocal in pushing for clean energy transitions—not just as a climate solution, but as an economic necessity. South Africa, despite its coal dependency, was a major beneficiary of JETP and now faces a funding crisis for its renewables shift.

But not all African nations see this as bad news. For oil-producing countries like Nigeria, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea, the U.S. pulling out of global climate finance—and the weakening of international climate pressure—could be an opportunity.

With less scrutiny on fossil fuel expansion, these nations may ramp up production to meet rising global demand, especially as Europe and China continue seeking new energy sources. Of course, this is a short-term win at best. Fossil fuel dependence isn’t a long-term economic strategy, and as global markets inevitably transition toward renewables, these nations could find themselves on the wrong side of history. But for now? Less climate pressure means more room for oil and gas deals.

What happens next?

The brutal reality? If the green transition is to happen, Africa will be forced to look elsewhere.

• Europe may step in, but with its own economic pressures, it won’t be enough.

• China and Russia are circling, eager to expand their influence—but neither has a strong track record on reducing emissions or funding climate adaptation.

• Private investors could help, but without government guarantees, the money won’t flow fast enough.

  
  

Some projects will survive. Many won’t.

Meanwhile, if Trump and his Western allies continue the trend away from climate change politics, Africa will continue to bear the brunt of their carbon emissions. And the long-term consequences? More frequent and severe climate disasters hitting Africa’s most vulnerable communities.

The fight for climate justice was never fair. But Trump’s policies just made it a whole lot harder.

Sources:

• OECD Greenhouse Gas Footprint Indicators

• US exits fund that compensates poorer countries

• FT: US pulls out of flagship $45bn global climate finance coalition

• https://www.undp.org/africa/stories/unlocking-africas-climate-action-potential-private-sectors-crucial-role