U.S. cities and states must collaborate on climate issue, expert says | Environment

With Donald Trump in the White House, Mr. Robertson is advocating for a collective effort among U.S. cities and states to ensure the country remains committed to environmental issues. However, he warns that progress will be constrained without adequate support. “We can choose to ignore the need for investment—something some national governments are opting for politically—but the impacts are undeniable,” he explains.

During his visit to Brazil for a meeting with mayors in Brasília on Wednesday (12), the Canadian expert highlighted Brazil’s leadership in encouraging global climate cooperation but emphasized the need for actions to translate into tangible outcomes.

“Cities can make a difference by implementing concrete measures that drive real change,” Mr. Robertson says, underscoring the critical role municipalities play in advancing the climate agenda.

Below are the key points from his interview with Valor:

Valor: How does integration between different levels of government help with climate change?

Gregor Robertson: Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. It is disrupting our lives and economies in ways we can’t fully measure, and its effects worsen each year. The only way to address such a massive problem is by working together and focusing on concrete actions. CHAMP is the first initiative at the UN level in which countries have committed to collaborating with sub-national governments to implement climate action. Currently, 75 countries have pledged to include cities, states, and regions in their national climate plans. This collaboration is essential for effectively combating global warming. If we examine the current efforts, we see that 75% of cities are carrying out more climate action than federal governments. Municipalities are leading the way on this agenda, and they also feel the impact of climate disasters first. The only way to truly address the issue is to start at the local level and work with the national level, ensuring that investments are made, and that governments are good partners in guaranteeing the necessary action and response. We must coordinate and collaborate as never before. Right now, there are many broken links in this chain, and we must strengthen these connections—financially, politically, and economically—to achieve meaningful results.

Valor: Brazil updated its emission targets last year, including CHAMP and multilateral governance. Should other countries follow suit?

Mr. Robertson: Brazil has set a fantastic example by including sub-national governments and embracing CHAMP’s commitment to its goals. The United Arab Emirates has also taken a similar step, which is promising. With COP28 chaired by the UAE and COP30 already committed to working with various levels of government, Brazil has shown exceptional leadership on the environmental agenda, and this gives us much hope for COP30. City networks such as GCOM and C40 are pushing many countries to follow Brazil’s lead. I believe we will see an unprecedented level of commitment this year, but we must turn that commitment into tangible action. It’s easy to make big promises, but it’s the actions in the real world that matter. This is where cities can make the biggest difference—by implementing concrete measures that lead to real change. This motivates cities because it improves their environment, enhances efficiency, and keeps their residents safer. This is the most intelligent investment we can make for our future.

Valor: How will the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and Trump’s new mandate affect the fight against climate change?

Mr. Robertson: Cities will continue to act, regardless of who is in the federal government. There are always two possible scenarios: cities can be constrained by the federal administration, or they can be pushed to do more. When Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement during his first term, we saw subnational leaders, mayors, and governors stepping up and making it clear that they were still committed to the emission targets. Americans continued to invest in action against global warming, no matter who was in the White House, and I hope to see the same happen now. As a mayor, you deal with all types of federal governance. I’ve worked with governments that were hostile to urban investment and others that focused on partnerships and collaborations with cities. An example is Lula’s government, which invests in green and resilient city programs. Then, there are governments like Trump’s that don’t support cities. But that can’t stop us from taking the necessary steps and seeking as many partners as possible to advance our goals.

Valor: How can prevention and mitigation actions be financed?

Mr. Robertson: Cities are responsible for more than 70% of the pollution driving climate change, so they need to be cleaner, more efficient, and reduce their emissions. Without this, climate change will only worsen. At the U20, we identified the need for $800 billion in public funding for cities. By 2030, we’ll need to invest around $4.5 trillion annually. While it may seem like a huge sum, more than half the world’s population lives in cities, meaning we’re talking about over 4 billion people. Ideally, the $800 billion should come from central governments, but that only covers about 20% of what’s needed each year. The rest must come from private investment. These funds can be sourced from international financial institutions, philanthropy, and public development banks. We’ve already established critical dialogues with development institutions to boost direct investments in cities. These amounts represent investments in our future. While the figures are large, they shouldn’t depend solely on national governments or individual countries. Of course, it’s beneficial to have them as partners, but as I’ve mentioned, cities will act, and they will work with partners who are willing and able to invest.

Valor: But not having the federal government’s support also has a negative impact, right?

Mr. Robertson: Mayors will do whatever it takes, no matter what, and find the best partners. But their actions can be limited. If national governments obstruct climate efforts, the consequences are real: more impacts, more lives lost, and more economic losses. The reality is that if we don’t make these investments and take the necessary measures now, the effects will worsen, and it will cost us far more money in the long run. More people will die, and more cities and communities will be destroyed by climate disasters. Inevitably, this will harm the economy, signaling risks to the market through insurance companies and disrupting business models. Look at the recent disasters in Brazil and the United States, each causing tens of billions of dollars in damages and reconstruction costs. We can choose to ignore the need for investment—and some national governments are making that political choice—but the consequences are real, the cost to the economy is tangible, and the market signals are unavoidable. We either invest wisely and proactively to prevent these impacts, or we pay for the damage and scramble to fix it, which is far more expensive. Either way, we must face it. This climate change problem isn’t going away. In the end, we are all taxpayers. We pay taxes at municipal, state, and federal levels, and we want those systems to work for us. We are investing in ourselves. But I hope national governments that resist investing in keeping people safe and protecting our economy from worsening climate change will realize the cost of inaction.

Valor: Each city has different needs. How can this be taken into account when financing climate change?

Mr. Robertson: The priority should certainly be cities, particularly in developing countries and the Global South. That’s where the investment is most urgently needed to ensure people’s safety and to develop clean and green economies instead of growing by increasing pollution and worsening the crisis. At the same time, cities in the Global North also need investment to reduce their pollution—after all, it’s their pollution that has contributed to the climate crisis, impacting cities in the Global South. These investments must occur simultaneously. When we talk about the US$ 4.5 trillion required for infrastructure by 2030, it’s to meet these needs while balancing the demands of the entire world. And it’s important to note that the estimates for climate adaptation are quite conservative. We clearly understand what’s needed to reduce emissions, electrify everything, and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. However, adaptation and resilience are harder to quantify, and the biggest demand is in the Global South. The scale of the disasters—hurricanes, floods, and so on—is rising rapidly, making it hard to predict future needs. For example, in Vancouver, we are investing around 50 billion Canadian dollars to adapt the city to rising sea levels. If the sea level rises further, as it’s projected to, we’ll likely need to invest even more in the next 20 years to address the same issue. The same scenario is unfolding in places like Lagos, Nigeria, and Jakarta, Indonesia. I want to emphasize that if we don’t act now, it will cost us far more in the future. The longer we delay dealing with climate impacts, the more expensive it will be to adapt.

Valor: Is it possible to change the mentality that fighting climate change is not profitable?

Mr. Robertson: There are very exciting opportunities ahead. Investing in clean transportation, sustainable buildings, and waste management not only creates jobs but also reduces costs. The economic analysis of this transition is overwhelmingly positive, except for industries like oil, gas, concrete, and steel. Any high-carbon sector will need to transform to adopt cleaner technologies, and that transformation requires investment. As a result, we’ve seen resistance from these industries. They hope to continue business as usual, maintaining high-carbon infrastructures for as long as possible. But that’s a business decision, and the reality is, it’s detrimental to our planet and our people. We are in an existential crisis, where we must change many existing industries and transform them into clean, green ones to protect ourselves and effectively tackle climate change. This shift presents a massive opportunity for job creation and investment, but the industries I mentioned need to make that transition. These sectors have been among the most lucrative in human history, generating significant revenue for national governments as well. This is why it’s challenging to change the current system. But is it acceptable for a few companies and investors to get rich while the rest of the world suffers the consequences? A significant political and societal movement is required to address this. We need to act for our future and expedite the transition. It will come at a cost, as complex political and business challenges need to be resolved. We have the tools to handle this, but unfortunately, we’re not seeing results. Climate change continues to worsen, inequality is rising, the rich are getting richer, and the planet is heating up. Clearly, the current system isn’t delivering the best outcomes for the largest number of people or the common good. That’s where change is needed.