Seeing the forest from the trees: Infrastructure Investment and “systemic” GHG impacts – Lessons from the Keystone XL

The year ahead promises to be electric. In a highly unpredictable geopolitical context, the European Union must balance its commitment to the long-term goals of climate neutrality and the immediate attention to security and competitiveness concerns. This puts electrification high on the agenda in Brussels. First, the Grids Package, presented in December 2025, provides for a more centralised approach to planning and is expected to be adopted by the Council in June. Second, before the summer, the Commission intends to present an Electrification Action Plan, which will focus on lowering prices and reinforcing demand. 

How distant December 12, 2015 now seems. All delegations at COP21 had then rallied behind Laurent Fabius’s little green hammer. Ten years later, the trend is closer to backlash. Climate action is now often portrayed in the public debate as too costly, because it requires major investment. Ineffective, since our share of global emissions is small. Unfair, because it cuts into purchasing power. Too divisive, supported only by part of the electorate. Too late, since keeping the planet below +2°C of warming now seems out of reach. Arguments that are partly true—yet require substantial nuance. 

A few weeks ago, COP30 concluded in Belém with all parties agreeing on a “global mobilization” (or mutirão) against climate change, proving that multilateralism remains a viable path for action, despite strong geopolitical and economic headwinds. However, Belém delivered underwhelming results: no roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels –despite a powerful push from President Lula, rallying over 80 countries, a lack of concrete decisions on deforestation –disappointing for an “Amazon COP”, and mixed results on the global goal on adaptation, among other outcomes.