Sustainability & Structural Shifts
A response to a “Sustainable Signals” report by the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing and the Trump administration’s efforts in regard to the environment and the economy.
Asset managers and asset owners expect to see an increase in sustainable assets and allocations according to the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing.
Greenwashing, the failure to expose the true environmental impact of a product or practice due to misleading marketing tactics, is one of the many challenges that asset owners handle with their asset managers.
Asset owners desire sustainable outcomes but such results are deemed unrealistic from asset managers. Hence, greenwashing comes between growth and sustainable assets and allocations.
Across the world, institutional investors differ in their approach, but, carbon offset appears to be the one commonality according to the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing.
While acts of carbon offset compensate for greenhouse gas emissions by reducing or removing emissions in different parts of the world, there is zero solution that reduces the use of an entity's own carbon emissions in the process of maximizing profit. This is because efforts to balance carbon footprint fall short.
Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration pushed government agencies to “limit their analysis and consideration of greenhouse gas emissions” which is outlined in a guide that promotes Section 6 of Executive Order 14154 signed by President Donald Trump.
Based on Section 6c of Executive Order 14154, working to reduce domestic based records in regard to greenhouse gas emission ultimately limits the available shares of the global energy and natural resource market for foreign energy producers — China being a notable example.
While China demands the most global energy from any other country, their overall growth dropped below 3% in 2024 according to key findings in the 2025 Global Energy Review by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Meanwhile, the United States saw the third-largest demand growth in 2024 following China and India.
With growth at the forefront of concerns, the United States threatens a future full of sustainable practices. Countries like China and India share similar patterns.
Green thumbs are a scarcity, especially in politics. This creates a list of problems with varying complexities.
I fail to understand politicians with policies that do not make sense long-term. Unless the matter is monetary, none of them seem to care which proves that destruction fails to discriminate. Anti green policies are supported across the entire political spectrum.
While corporate America contributes to the problem, studies show that the U.S. economic system is the cause for concern. A long-term sustainable future cannot exist in a world that’s reliant on capitalism as capitalism sees no ceiling for growth. The outcome means that one day, Earth will be unable to sustain itself.
As of now, politicians do not have the answers for alternative structures so capitalism carries on. Unless a politician comes up with a structure based on human rights, freedom, and democracy, a necessary shift seems unlikely to occur.
Companies and businesses are incentivized to minimize costs not minimize harm. Exploitation of resources is their most efficient solution.
While sustainable assets and allocations sound hopeful, a future that’ll consider a structural shift sounds less so.
In the meantime, greenwashing remains a constant struggle while politicians and their policies fail to fix the core of the problem. Some fail to acknowledge this reality in itself. Instead, politicians pollute the media with poor ideas and pit the public against one another. Nevertheless, the problem is so grand that unity is essential, not optional.
