The new president is sending a clear message by withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. But there are many different voices in US politics.

On the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, 24 state governors, representing almost 60% of the US economy, announced, as part of the U.S. Climate Alliance, that they want to implement the climate protection agreement no matter what.

In any case, the statements from politicians are varied. Some programmes apply to the entire USA. But of course there are also individual states that are pushing ahead with different initiatives.

I think both his programmes are actually very similar from a factual point of view. What we are seeing today was pretty much the same in 2016/2017.

President Trump's priorities are clear. And they come as no surprise.

In 2017, we observed similar personnel decisions at the top of this agency.

The question for us is: What impact will this have on the transition of companies? Because only this transformation will lead to an economy that is more competitive. Energy costs will fall and the reliability of energy supply will increase.

We notice that most companies are continuing with their climate programmes. Will this be as straightforward as before? No, definitely not. Certain objectives need to be rethought. Megatrends manifest themselves slowly but surely and are therefore – in contrast to political positions – stronger and more permanent. Politics cannot stop the megatrend towards renewable energies.

Yes, but this increase already occurred under Trump's predecessor Joe Biden. Ultimately, the oil price is the decisive factor in whether more oil is produced. It will not be so easy to expand capacity further.

It's not about confidence. There are long-term trends that are independent of what politicians say. In Europe, about half of electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But in China, the sector is expanding much faster. We are convinced that the demand for fossil fuels is reaching a plateau.

They may be weakened somewhat, and that's something to think about. But they will not be completely reversed.

Those who prioritise fossil fuels will have to pay more for energy supply. Of course, this has consequences for the economy as a whole. China, on the other hand, is driving forward the expansion of renewables at extreme speed. The energy supply results in competitive advantages.

I don't understand how it will be possible to win votes with such a claim. The main driver of energy prices in Germany is the gas we burn to provide peak-load electricity. Renewables, on the other hand, do not directly drive up prices. Anyone who does not support wind power, or even wants to dismantle wind turbines, is accepting higher prices and dependence on other countries.

The situation is complicated. Certain assets actually lose value. However, sustainability also makes it possible to operate much more efficiently. I am convinced that if we manage the transition in Europe, prosperity will increase rather than decrease.

A battery-powered vehicle converts almost 90% of the energy provided into locomotion, while combustion engines only manage 13%. Another example: a heat pump delivers 3 or more kWh of thermal energy from 1 kWh of electricity.

We should differentiate between long-term and short-term effects. If you want to be a long-term investor like Allianz, you can clearly commit to a certain form of economic transition. But it is also an issue for us that we, like most investors, have to present short-term results.

That's the way it is. But when the political signals are very different, we have to work harder to show what our own transition plan looks like. Where are we going with our investments? What should we support in terms of transforming the economy? The long-term nature of our path is in the interests of our owners and customers.

No. We have formulated targets for the year 2030 in our transition plan. We are implementing these. This long-term path can then be used to explain why certain results have been produced in the short term.

We have already reported on the first three quarters of 2024, which have gone really well. In terms of investment, we naturally have to make an extreme effort to be able to cushion various forms of volatility. They increase when politics sends very changeable signals.

Not only. We have that in many places. Sometimes battery-powered vehicles are subsidised, sometimes not. There have also been short-term changes in political signals with regard to thermal energy. Or, Berlin suddenly wants to suspend the implementation of the EU directive on sustainability reporting for two years, or even fundamentally change it. If the CSRD reporting is changed, this will have an impact on companies and the market.

A long-term investor like Allianz is always in favour of first setting targets and then actually working on their implementation. Of course, you can learn what you can perhaps do better. But politicians should not always fundamentally question the targets.

This is already having an impact on long-term investors. The costs involved in achieving a result, even in the short term, may well be higher than we have seen in the past.

This applies to certain forms of derivatives, for example. But the allocation to individual asset classes can also be different in a more volatile market environment, because short-term earnings effects need to be avoided as far as possible. These opportunity costs are the result of increased volatility.

This works well to some extent. But it has its limits when the signals change significantly. If investors then have to protect themselves against volatility in a different way, they can no longer expect certain returns.

In the long term, the issue of sustainability remains extremely important. Investment objects that do not transform themselves towards sustainability are likely to lose value dramatically in the long term. This is also the reason why we are pushing sustainability so strongly. We believe that we can significantly improve the value of various forms of investments if we support the transition.

But the very first of these alliances continues to operate: the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance, which we co-founded in 2019. It has 88 members who have just under 10 trillion dollars under management. In five years, only four members have left, and only because the objectives were too ambitious for them.

We are actively committed to reducing emissions. And with success: members are reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their portfolios by 6% every year. That's a great thing.

We have a particularly urgent need to transform in Europe. You could completely omit sustainability from this analysis. It's simply about remaining competitive. I would almost dare to say: becoming competitive again.

Essentially, we need to switch the energy supply in Europe to renewable energies. In addition, the necessary infrastructure should be created with more electricity grids and battery storage systems. All of this must be embedded in a political context. The EU Commission is doing this very well. Of course, the extent of regulation should always be weighed up.

In my opinion, Europe will continue this transition, if only because of its dependence on certain energy suppliers, which it wants to avoid.

Germany wants to save 65% of CO2 equivalents by 2030 compared to 1990. This requires corresponding transition steps if you don't want to break the law or trigger EU fines. The issue is playing a very minor role in the current election campaign. Basically, society lacks a certain set of goals.

I have guiding principles in mind that would help the economy and the population as a whole to understand what the future should look like in 2030. I have three areas in mind: The energy market, the transport sector, and the infrastructure for providing data. Such guiding principles could greatly advance the discussion in Germany.

There are many individual parts. The Federal Network Agency, for example, clearly sets out how the networks should develop. But there is no overall picture of what the energy market should look like.

We can then discuss which building blocks we should actually create and when. If guiding principles represent the target vision for 2030, discussions on individual topics are easier to conduct. We could get more people to really help drive the transformation.

In terms of the Climate Protection Act, there is a clear goal for the decarbonisation of real estate. If the whole discussion surrounding the Building Energy Act had been embedded in this vision, it might have been easier for many people to understand why we need other forms of heat energy supply than oil and gas heating in the long term.

Of course, my colleagues and I would be very happy to get involved, after all, we could quantify the investments for the 2030 targets. We would be particularly well placed to support the transition of the economy with our pension investments.

Of course we want to be active as an investor. But Allianz and a number of other financial services providers in Germany generate returns – especially for policyholders who make provisions for their old age with us. That simply goes well with more sustainability.