Category: Environment

China at the forefront of the green energy revolution

The following article by Carlos Martinez, written for the journal Communist Review, describes China’s progress in the field of environmental protection and sustainable development.

The article gives a brief overview of the science around climate change, and introduces China’s long-term strategy of building an ecological civilisation. It goes on to give a detailed description of China’s remarkable trajectory in renewable energy and green transport, as well as afforestation and biodiversity protection.

Carlos notes that the fruits of China’s innovation and research are being shared at a global level, citing a Financial Times editorial saying that “when it comes to climate change, Beijing’s green advances should be seen as positive for China, and for the world”. Indeed China’s investment in wind and solar power has already brought costs down by as much as 90 percent. With the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) increasingly becoming a ‘Green Belt and Road’, China is supplying renewable energy infrastructure to countries around the world, particularly the Global South, providing an opportunity for many poorer countries to leapfrog the fossil fuel stage of development.

The article concludes by noting that China’s achievements in green energy are built on the basis of political economy:

China’s enormous investments have largely been made by state banks, and many of its key projects carried out by state-owned enterprises, according to strategic guidelines laid out by the government. This is possible because of the basic structure and planned nature of the Chinese economy. Which is to say, the fundamental reason China has emerged as the undisputed leader in the fight against climate breakdown is its socialist system.

Yet even in the capitalist West, “China’s example can be used to help create mass pressure to stop our governments and ruling classes from destroying the planet, and to encourage sensible cooperation with China on environmental issues.”

It is by now almost universally understood that humans need to transition away from fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. As Hannah Ritchie, Deputy Editor and Lead Researcher at Our World in Data, says:

“Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising; ice sheets are melting; and other species are struggling to adapt to a changing climate. Humans face an avalanche of problems from flooding and drought to wildfires and fatal heatwaves. Farmers are at risk of crop failures. Cities are at risk of being submerged. There’s one main cause: human emissions of greenhouse gases.[1]

The science is clear and widely accepted: human activity, most importantly the burning of fossil fuels, has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to an unprecedented level. This has led to more heat being trapped within the Earth’s atmosphere (that is, less heat is being radiated back into space), resulting in a global heating effect, which leads to more frequent and severe weather events, rising sea levels, and shifts in ecosystems.

Data from the ice core record, going back around 800,000 years, shows that carbon dioxide concentration has fluctuated quite widely, between around 170 and 280 parts per million (ppm), with a previous peak at 300 ppm around 320,000 years ago. CO₂ levels have been stable at around 270 ppm for the last ten thousand years, until a significant upward curve starting in the early 1800s and accelerating sharply from the 1950s onwards.[2] At the time of writing (June 2024), carbon dioxide concentration is 424 ppm.

Greenhouse gas concentration will continue to increase, and the corresponding ecological problems will get significantly worse, unless we either reduce our consumption of energy to an extraordinary degree or we switch to non-emitting forms of energy. The idea of reducing humanity’s overall energy consumption is not plausible. For the majority of the world’s population, low energy consumption correlates to poverty; to low standards of living. Clearly, socialists hope that most people in the developing world, over the course of the coming decades, will increase rather than decrease their consumption of energy, and will experience a corresponding improvement in quality of life. As such, the only realistic option for preventing climate breakdown whilst continuing to pursue development is to undertake a massive global transition to green energy: to meet humanity’s energy needs without releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and without causing permanent damage to the environment.

Continue reading China at the forefront of the green energy revolution

Canada’s unjustifiable tariffs on EVs from China

The following opinion piece, written by International Manifesto Group convenor and Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Radhika Desai for CGTN, critiques the Canadian government’s recent decision to slap 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Radhika notes that the Trudeau government’s stated justification for the tariffs – that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry” – is pure misdirection. The real reason is to prove Canada’s loyalty to the US in the run-up to the renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As for China’s “intentional state-directed policy”, “the most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialisation where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the US itself and even Canada.”

China’s government has intentionally concentrated resources on the EV industry for over 20 years, “particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter.” The authorities provided further support by buying vast numbers of electric buses to provide low-emission public transport, and by building EV charging infrastructure throughout the country.

As for the oft-repeated trope about China’s “overcapacity”, Radhika writes that “if anything, the world needs more production of these things” – echoing the sentiments of former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim.

Radhika observes: “What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the US or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.”

The article concludes by noting that the US and Canada, having followed the path of neoliberalism and financialisation for several decades, have precious little chance of success in competing with China on advanced manufacturing.

Three months after the U.S. announcement slapping 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EV), Canada has followed suit. As local observers see it, the Trudeau government faced a choice. On the one hand, it could risk retaliatory tariffs from China on Canada’s much smaller economy: The memory of those imposed on Canadian canola, pork and soybeans worth billions in trade in 2019 in retaliation for Canada’s illegal arrest of Meng Wanzhou remains fresh. On the other hand, it could risk U.S. anger should China extend even part of its EV supply chain into Canada to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement access to the U.S. market. Such anger would be bound to spill over into the renegotiation of that agreement in 2026.

Canada chose to avoid risking U.S. anger. But that was not how it justified the decision. Instead, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland claimed that “China has an intentional state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry … We simply will not allow that to happen to our EV sector, which has shown such promise.” This justification is clearly cooked up.

Let’s take all the elements of that statement in turn.

The reference to “intentional state-directed policy” is a bizarre instance of trying to tar a virtue as a vice. The most authoritative development economists will agree that there are no known instances of successful industrialization where the state has not played a central role. This is as true of Japan or Germany or South Korea as it is of the U.S. itself and even Canada.

The right to pursue industrial policy was recognized by the erstwhile General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and is recognized by its successor, the World Trade Organization. Moreover, both the U.S. and Canada are themselves talking about industrial policy and state subsidies to sectors facing competition from China. 

As a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology pointed out, China’s success in EV development is a classic case of a successful industrial policy. It began investing in the sector as early as 2001 when it became clear that its internal combustion and hybrid car industries were too far behind major manufacturers in the U.S., Germany and Japan.

Moreover, EVs would also have beneficial effects in reducing pollution and oil imports. Chinese authorities concentrated resources on this nascent industry, particularly focusing research and development in making lithium iron phosphate batteries that were safer and cheaper than lithium nickel manganese cobalt batteries almost as energy dense as the latter. They also began providing the fledgling industry with markets by buying its vehicles for public transport.

Nor was China at all autarkic. On the contrary, it invited Tesla in, giving it the same tax and subsidy treatment as domestic producers. Tesla extended its supply chains into China while also stimulating domestic producers to compete with it.

Next, let us come to “overcapacity and oversupply.” Since when did the production of low-cost and high-quality products, particularly those that advance the world towards its critically important climate goals, become a matter of overcapacity and oversupply? If anything, the world needs more production of these things. Canada, the U.S. and the West should join in the effort to produce such goods.

What such complaints really mean is that there is a market for high-technology goods that is no longer being supplied by the U.S. or the West, thus endangering their 200-year-old monopoly on such goods. Well, for all the crocodile tears Western politicians weep over the poverty and lack of the development in so much of the world, they do get mighty upset when one part of it, namely China, manages to develop and even push back the technological frontier.

As for “crippling our (Canadian) industry,” that’s pretty ridiculous coming from countries that have been sparing no effort – sanctions, tariffs, military alliance and base building, “freedom of navigation” and other military exercises, propaganda, fear-mongering and false “development” advice – to prevent the rise of China and, one might add, that of most of the developing world.

Finally, Freeland speaks of Canada’s own EV sector “that has shown so much promise.” Undoubtedly, the thing that countries like Canada and the U.S. ought to do is find a sector or product that they have the unique strengths to develop, as China did with EVs, knowing that it could not compete internationally on conventional cars or hybrids.

However, there is a big distance between “should” and “can.” Today, notwithstanding the corporate subsidies that the U.S. and Canada are giving to their manufacturers, it is unlikely that they will be able to replicate China’s success in manufacturing, not least because, as they have gone down the road of neoliberalism and financialization, they have lost the capacity for sustained industrial policy they once had.

Chinese scientists design new cooling material for buildings to reduce carbon emissions

The following article from Xinhua reports on an exciting scientific development: Chinese researchers have created a sustainable radiative cooling material with the potential to cool buildings by up to 16 degrees Celcius without consuming any energy in the process.

The article notes that “in a world experiencing rapid warming, effectively cooling our homes during sweltering summer months with reduced energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for meeting carbon reduction targets”. As such, “the novel aerogel holds promise for significantly reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption and paves the way for innovative and sustainable radiative cooling materials in the future”.

According to Victoria Bela in SCMP, “the biodegradable material can be welded together on a large scale using only water, creating planks that can act as a passive cooling material that will reduce the need for energy-hungry cooling methods such as air conditioning and refrigeration that risk undermining the fight against global warming”.

In this area as in many others, China is leading the way in scientific research towards a sustainable future for humanity.

The study is written up in Science.

In a world experiencing rapid warming, effectively cooling our homes during sweltering summer months with reduced energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for meeting carbon reduction targets.

A team of Chinese researchers has crafted an innovative biomass-derived material using DNA, the genetic blueprint of life. This aerogel demonstrates a remarkable ability to reduce ambient temperatures by 16 degrees Celsius on sunny days, even under intense solar radiation.

The researchers combined DNA and gelatin into an ordered layered aerogel structure that converts absorbed ultraviolet light into visible light to surpass 100 percent solar reflectance, yielding exceptional radiative cooling.

The adoption of biopolymer-based radiative cooling material helps mitigate environmental pollution, according to the study published on Friday in the journal Science.

Moreover, these aerogels, efficiently fabricated on a large scale through water welding, demonstrate remarkable reparability, recyclability and biodegradability.

This aerogel material is poised to revolutionize the energy efficiency of urban architecture as an outer protective layer, said the paper’s corresponding author Zhao Haibo from Sichuan University.

The simulation outcomes of the study have demonstrated a substantial reduction in annual energy expenditure in cooling for buildings across all modeled cities.

The novel aerogel holds promise for significantly reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption and paves the way for innovative and sustainable radiative cooling materials in the future, Zhao said.

China has committed to the dual carbon goals of peaking carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060.

Erik Solheim: China is the indispensable nation for the green transition

Elaborating on comments he recently made in an interview with Global Times about China’s supposed ‘overcapacity’ in green products, Erik Solheim has written a concise and powerful opinion piece on the topic for China Daily. In the article, Solheim notes:

China is now dominant in nearly all green sectors. The nation accounts for 60 percent or more of the solar, wind and hydro technologies produced today, as well as electric cars and batteries. China is the indispensible nation for the green shift.

He further points out that the level of commitment and investment that led to China’s dominance in green technology is exactly what is needed to address the climate crisis. “I may be naive, but I thought this was exactly what the world desires. Massive investments in renewable energies, bringing down the price, and scaling green energies to new heights to enable China to achieve its carbon peak target well ahead of the 2030 deadline.”

China’s investment and innovation has resulted in a dramatic fall in the price of solar and wind energy – of at least 80 percent in the last decade. “This is largely, but, for sure, not solely, thanks to China. I thought this was what we all dreamed of.”

The author calls on the countries of the West to stop complaining about China’s supposed ‘overcapacity’ and instead learn from China’s example – “Chinese ‘overcapacity’ in green sectors should be admired, not criticised”. The US and its allies should be ramping up their own efforts in green technology, competing fairly and working together with China and other countries towards a sustainable future for humanity.

Erik Solheim is vice-president of the Green Belt and Road Coalition and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He spoke at our event Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative in November 2023.

In March, I visited Wuwei in Gansu province. I had to keep pinching myself. There were solar panels covering the desert with only the horizon interrupting my view. China Three Gorges Corporation and the Elion Resources Group of Inner Mongolia, the companies that have established the solar farm, have also developed a lot of wind energy.

I may be naive, but I thought this was exactly what the world desires. Massive investments in renewable energies, bringing down the price, and scaling green energies to new heights to enable China to achieve its carbon peak target well ahead of the 2030 deadline.

The visit of United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Beijing around the same time, prompted me to think differently. From the US’ perspective, the massive Chinese roll out of green technologies is not an enormous service to the world, but instead a problem. In Yellen’s view, China has overcapacity in the green sector.

But how can that be a problem?

I recall vividly when we left the climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, some environmentalists were desperate, they saw almost no solution. Yes, former US president Barack Obama was there with then Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, along with German chancellor Angela Merkel, prime minister Manmohan Singh of India and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the outcomes were meager.

What no one contemplated departing from Copenhagen was that the price of solar energy would fall almost 80 percent and that of offshore wind energy by almost 70 percent in the next decade. This is largely, but, for sure, not solely, thanks to China. I thought this was what we all dreamed of. Some governments, including the Joe Biden administration, have argued that we need a green shift in production and that it has to be innovative, at scale and cheap.

The argument about “overcapacity” is against common sense. Interestingly it is also contrary to all economic theories, starting from Adam Smith. My nation, Norway, has huge “overcapacity” in oil and in fish. We sell a lot more oil than we can consume at home and we catch a lot more cod and salmon than we can eat ourselves. That “overcapacity” makes it possible for us to buy cellular phones from the US, wine from France and electric cars from China.

No nation in modern history has benefited more from overcapacity than the US. In the middle of the 20th century, the US accounted for nearly half the global economy. The nation had overcapacity in nearly all sectors and it made the US very strong. Today Silicon Valley has an enormous overcapacity in digital products. If Silicon Valley only produced for California or for the US, no one would ever have heard of that little valley.

China is now dominant in nearly all green sectors. The nation accounts for 60 percent or more of the solar, wind and hydro technologies produced today, as well as electric cars and batteries. China is the indispensable nation for the green shift. It is possible to go green without China, but it will be a lot more expensive and thus much slower.

The West should get up early in the morning and respond to China’s lead by pursuing innovation and green competition. Protectionism is a race to the bottom. Green competition is a race to the top.

China invited Tesla to make its gigafactory in Shanghai, to bring a “catfish” into the Chinese electric vehicle market. It forced many smaller Chinese competitors to swim faster. It worked, and BYD, Geely, Xpeng, Nio and many others are now strong contenders. Tech companies such as Huawei and Xiaomi are also joining the contest.

The West should similarly invite BYD and CATL, LONGi and Tongwei, Goldwind and Envision to invest in Europe and America. That may tempt Western companies to run faster.

Last year I visited CATL. It is located in the small town of Ningde in Fujian province. It is the world’s leading electric battery maker, providing batteries to Tesla and many others. CATL was full of praise for Germany’s BMW who they repeatedly said had helped them off the ground, by being a demanding customer and sharing technology and expertise.

Such partnerships can be replicated, only with Chinese companies in the lead.

It takes two to tango. The West needs to respond constructively to the competition from China. China can also help this process, through dialogue and partnerships.

Of course all nations want jobs in their own country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched his “Make in India” strategy. French President Emmanuel Mac ron is concerned about jobs in France, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz with the future of the German car industry. It is highly unlikely that China will be able just to export green products from home. Chinese companies will be called upon to create jobs in Europe and America, in Africa and Asia. It’s great to see BYD investing in Brazil, CATL in Hungary and LONGi in Vietnam. We need a lot more of this.

China should also look favorably into companies complaining about a level playing field in the Chinese market. There is for instance hardly any outside wind power equipment makers left in China. Maybe they are not able to compete? But a dialogue to assure there is fair mutual access to markets, will calm the skeptics.

China was also responsible for 38 percent of the total global clean tech spending in 2023, investing an impressive $676 billion. Last year, China invested $890 billion in clean energy sectors and it added 300 gigawatt of solar and wind energy to the grid, that is 10 times the total hydro production in Norway which keeps all its inhabitants warm in winter, with plenty of electricity available for any demand.

Chinese “overcapacity” in green sectors should be admired, not criticized. But there should be a profound dialogue to make sure all nations benefit.

Biden’s tariffs on China: a trade unionist response

What follows below is a two part article by Chris Fry – a Chrysler retiree and former United Auto Workers organiser in Detroit – about Biden’s recently-announced tariffs on China, and how the labour movement in the US should respond to them.

Chris observes that these tariffs are fundamentally detrimental to the interests of working people in the US. Tariffs on medical supplies in particular “must be considered particularly bizarre” given that Covid is resurgent and that there are concerns about a new outbreak of avian flu.

Increasing tariffs on EVs from 25 to 100 percent will double the price of these cars, “placing them out of reach for most of our class”. The author cites an article from Foreign Policy magazine pointing out that “the winner of the escalating, zero-sum green technology trade war between the United States and China may well be climate change”.

Biden has made all sorts of promises in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but, as part of an electoral strategy of out-Trumping Trump, “Biden’s climate promises go right out the window”.

In terms of an appropriate trade union response to the tariffs, Chris writes that “to continue to fight for high paying jobs for workers to produce low-price EVs essential to reduce carbon emissions, the union movement should consider a different view of socialist China and its vast green energy capabilities”.

Unions of course are eager to create and protect jobs; Chris notes that Chinese company BYD already has a factory in Los Angeles producing electric buses and, “unlike their European counterparts in anti-union southern states, the BYD plant’s 700 workers are members of the Sheet Metal Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Union (SMART), Local 105”.

Inviting Chinese companies to manufacture essential environmentally-friendly products in the US “could be a huge gain for both the union and environmental movement and link the two movements together. Finally, it could convert the dangerous ruling-class spawned hostility towards China into genuine working-class solidarity.”

The two part article was originally published in Fighting Words, the journal of the Communist Workers League.

Part 1

When Biden was running for office in 2020, he said that Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products increased inflation on the public and promised to reduce or eliminate them.

He did not.

Instead, on May 4, the Biden Administration announced a massive tariff increase on imported goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC):

Tariffs on medical supplies must be considered particularly bizarre, as the population is still subject to outbreaks of the deadly Covid virus. And public health officials are increasingly alarmed by a new outbreak from the avian H5N1 flu virus which has infected dairy cows and their milk across the country. Many farmworkers who milk cows have become ill from this virus.

A June 3 Scientific American article reports:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends that workers on farms where H5N1 has been detected have access to personal protective equipment, or PPE, such as N95 respirators, face masks, goggles and face shields. But it’s only a recommendation, Lakdawala says.

In order to prevent bird flu from causing more infections in humans, Lakdawala thinks dairy workers on all farms should have access to and use proper PPE—especially face shields to protect their eyes. Getting workers to wear N95 masks while working all day in hot barns is unlikely, she notes, but a face shield would provide at least some protection.

But in terms of the economic effects on workers and the oppressed communities, the most dramatic was the tariff increase was on electric vehicles (EVs), going from Trump’s 25 percent to a whopping 100 percent, doubling the price of the cars, placing them out of reach for most of our class.

And Biden tripled tariffs on Chinese-manufactured lithium batteries, going from Trump’s 8% to 25%.

The big winner from Biden’s tariffs: Global warming

A May 28th article from the Foreign Policy website describes these new tariffs from an environmental perspective:

The winner of the escalating, zero-sum green technology trade war between the United States and China may well be climate change. In the latest surge of election-year techno-nationalism, to protect and advance his green transition—and to out-Trump former U.S. President Donald Trump—President Joe Biden last week imposed a wave of new tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, and solar cells as well as other Chinese goods, in addition to retaining all of Trump’s tariffs on China.

Scientists are already predicting that 2024 will surpass 2023 as the warmest year globally:

A May 7 CNN article describes some of the catastrophic effects of this on people around the world:

The impacts have been stark. Swaths of Asia have been grappling with deadly heat: schools were closed for millions of children in Bangladesh, rice fields have shriveled in Vietnam, and people in India battled 110 degree Fahrenheit temperatures to vote in recent elections.

Global ocean heat in April was also record-breaking for the 13th consecutive month. Ocean surface temperatures reached 21.04 degrees, the highest on record for any April, and just a fraction below the overall record set in March, according to Copernicus data.

The impact on marine systems is devastating. A mass coral bleaching event occurred this spring, which scientists said at the time could be the worst on record.

As for the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has presented a grim hurricane forecast for 2024:

NOAA National Weather Service forecasters at the Climate Prediction Center predict above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from June 1 to November 30, predicts an 85% chance of an above-normal season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season and a 5% chance of a below-normal season.

NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 8 to 13 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 4 to 7 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). Forecasters have a 70% confidence in these ranges.

In 2021, to pass his corporate-friendly Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden promised a 50 percent to 52 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030, zero net emissions by 2050, and 50 percent of all new vehicles being zero-emission by 2030.

Continue reading Biden’s tariffs on China: a trade unionist response

Developed countries must prioritise climate cooperation over China containment

The article below, republished from Global Times, reports on the high number of abnormal weather events this spring and summer, including unusually high temperatures in Northern China, heavy rainfall in Southern China, Hurricane Beryl in the Americas, and a series of droughts, floods and heatwaves elsewhere. “These scenes once again sound the alarm on climate issues for all of humanity.”

The author observes that “people generally hope that governments worldwide can work together to address the frequent occurrences of extreme weather globally”; that is, ordinary people expect their governments to pursue intense cooperation with countries around the world in order to tackle this existential issue. However, in spite of talking a good game on environmental questions, “developed countries such as the US and Europe have failed to fulfill their commitments in actual implementation”. Alarmingly, these issues seem to be increasingly sidelined in the US. The article cites Jeff Goodell, author of the book The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, remarking on the recent presidential debate between Trump and Biden: “More time discussing golf than climate. What a world we are living in.”

Meanwhile, as China races ahead in renewable energy and other green technologies, the US and Europe are imposing tariffs and sanctions on Chinese EVs and solar power materials, the objective of which is to suppress China’s rise.

The author concludes:

Global climate change is a common enemy of all humanity. Countries around the world must work together, share responsibilities and take positive and effective actions. This is not only to protect our planet but also for the well-being of future generations. Only through global cooperation can we make substantial progress in addressing climate change, which especially requires developed countries to broaden their mind and take pragmatic actions.

Abnormal climate and frequent severe weather events have been a common experience for many people this summer. Recently, northern China has experienced prolonged high temperatures, while southern China has been hit by frequent heavy rains. Floods exceeding warning levels have occurred in 98 rivers in the Yangtze River Basin, the Xijiang River in the Pearl River Basin and the Taihu Basin, said the Ministry of Water Resources on June 30. On a global scale, since the beginning of this year, extreme weather events such as heavy rains, floods, heatwaves and droughts have frequently occurred in many places. Hurricane Beryl has intensified into a Category 3 storm and is making landfall in the Americas, while “deadly heatwaves are scorching cities across four continents.” These scenes once again sound the alarm on climate issues for all of humanity.

The latest Global Risks Report released by the World Economic Forum warns that in the next decade, the primary global risk will not be armed conflicts or social division but extreme weather events. For this reason, people generally hope that governments worldwide can work together to address the frequent occurrences of extreme weather globally. A survey report released by the UN Development Programme on June 20 shows that 80 percent of respondents globally hope for a stronger climate action.

Addressing climate change requires the full co-operation of the international community and both developed and developing countries need to fulfill their respective responsibilities and obligations. As early as 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change enshrined the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, recognizing the historical responsibility of developed countries for their emissions. However, developed countries such as the US and Europe have failed to fulfill their commitments in actual implementation despite having shown a positive attitude in international negotiations on global climate governance. This has directly slowed down the process of global green and low-carbon transformation.

As the largest global economy and most advanced developed country, the US plays a crucial role in the process of global climate governance. Especially, the commitments and actions of the US not only set an example for other developed countries but also bring expectations and confidence to the international community as a whole. Unfortunately, the US is the only signatory that has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement to date, showing significant regression in its stance on addressing global climate change, which has severely undermined the confidence in international cooperation on global climate governance. Although the Biden administration announced US’ return to the Paris Agreement in 2021, it is hard to hide the wobbly nature of US climate policy, especially under the highly politicalized landscape of bipartisan competition, where climate issues are not purely scientific topics but highly politicized ones.

It is worth noting that the importance of climate issues ranks far lower on the US political spectrum than economic, diplomatic, or even China-related issues. The recent first televised debate among candidates for the 2024 US presidential election was a prime example. Despite the New York Times emphasizing beforehand that “no election has more potential to affect the planet’s warming climate than the rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump,” the two candidates only devoted a very short amount of time to climate issues. Author Jeff Goodell, of the book The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, expressed frustration on social media, perhaps representing the thoughts of most Americans: “More time discussing golf than climate. What a world we are living in.”

As an important player in the global arena, Europe also has room for improvement in its approaches to addressing global climate change. The EU has initiated several anti-subsidy investigations against Chinese new energy companies and recently, the European Commission announced plans to impose tariffs on pure electric vehicles imported from China starting in July. British scholar Martin Jacques recently warned in the Global Times, “What compromise will it finally reach between protecting European carmakers and prioritizing its commitment to decarbonization? Or, to put it another way, what role does it see Chinese EVs playing in Europe’s fight against global warming?” Such reminders not only question European decision-makers but also question Europe’s sincerity and determination in promoting global climate governance.

To push forward global climate governance, China has always been a firm activist. We are not only promoting sustainable development at home but also actively cooperating with all parties, continuously injecting stable momentum into global climate governance. China has exceeded its 2020 climate action targets ahead of schedule and will realize carbon neutrality from carbon peaking in the shortest time in global history. The green and low-carbon transformation that China promotes is not just a transformation at the technological and energy levels but involves the transformation of the entire social system, as well as the economy, culture, finance and other aspects. This is an important strategic decision and action statement made by China in response to global climate change.

Global climate change is a common enemy of all humanity. Countries around the world must work together, share responsibilities and take positive and effective actions. This is not only to protect our planet but also for the well-being of future generations. Only through global cooperation can we make substantial progress in addressing climate change, which especially requires developed countries to broaden their mind and take pragmatic actions.

EU tariffs on China: a script written in Washington

The following article by Carlos Martinez, first published in the Morning Star, comments on the European Union’s recent decision to impose tariffs of up to 38 percent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The only enthusiastic supporter (and presumably instigator) of these tariffs is the US, which is embarked on an escalating New Cold War against China.

Carlos describes the negative reaction to the tariffs not just in China but within much of the European business community and among environmentalists. Ultimately, aside from likely inspiring reciprocal tariffs from China, the move will have the effect of “making the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” – in the words of a Chatham House article.

Carlos further notes that “imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable”, and as such, “would render any sort of green new deal out of the question”.

The article concludes: “For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.”

Last week the EU notified Beijing that, following a nine-month investigation into alleged unfair state subsidies, it will impose new tariffs of up to 38 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Given the existing 10 per cent tariff on car imports, this will mean Chinese EVs will be hit with tariffs of up to 48 per cent. These new tariffs are due to kick in on July 4.

Germany, Sweden and Hungary have been vocal in opposing the move, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stating the obvious: “Isolation and illegal customs barriers ultimately just makes everything more expensive, and everyone poorer.”

Of course, this reflects the importance of the Chinese market for German car manufacturers, who will be hoping beyond hope that the authorities in Beijing haven’t been studying the Book of Exodus and thus are not minded to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye.”

BMW CEO Oliver Zipse commented: “The decision for additional import duties is the wrong way to go. The EU Commission is thus harming European companies and European interests.”

This sentiment was echoed by a spokesperson for Volkswagen: “The negative effects of this decision outweigh any potential benefits for the European and especially the German automotive industry.”

Indeed there seems to be little enthusiasm for these tariffs anywhere outside the White House. The Bloomberg editorial board argues that “tariffs won’t bring the EU prosperity” and that the increased price of EVs will decelerate Europe’s green transition.

Similarly, an article for Chatham House — titled “Imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles will make the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” — notes that the EU has a legally binding target of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Meanwhile “decarbonisation technologies like solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles share a characteristic that sets them apart from other traded goods: when swapped for fossil fuel alternatives, they reduce the quantity of planet-warming gases being pumped into the atmosphere.” Such technologies “are needed in vast quantities, and in very short order, to give any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.”

It is noteworthy — and presumably not entirely coincidental — that the EU’s announcement came just a month after the Biden administration announced tariffs on Chinese EVs of 100 per cent.

In the case of the US, the material impact of these tariffs is virtually non-existent, given that Chinese-made models constitute just 2 per cent of all EV sales; and this in a market where EVs only make up 8 per cent of all car registrations (compared with almost 50 per cent in China).

The US tariff increase is simply an attempt by Biden to appear “tough on China” in the run-up to the presidential election. Donald Trump, not to be outdone on such matters, has promised tariffs of 200 per cent. As such, what we’re talking about is yet another component in the US-led new cold war on China, for which there is bipartisan consensus.

So it would appear the EU is acting in accordance with the strong recommendations (instructions) of Washington.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time Europe has compromised its climate commitments and economic stability in order to participate in the US’s pursuit of 21st century hegemony.

In 2022, in order to punish Russia and to generate profits for the US’s domestic fossil fuel industry, the Biden administration heavily promoted sanctions on Russian natural gas. The result has been a major increase in US exports of fracked shale gas to Europe.

To get this gas from North America to Europe, it has to be liquified, stored at minus 70°C, and transported by ship. This whole process is extremely costly in both financial and ecological terms, certainly much more so than using existing pipelines running from Russia through Europe.

The European working class and progressive movement should oppose these tariffs on Chinese EVs and should resist the ongoing attempts by sections of the bourgeoisie to align Europe with Washington’s reckless foreign policy.

As noted in these pages in August last year, “major problems facing humanity require international co-operation — and China’s leading position in green technology makes co-operation in this field essential.”

China has raced ahead in renewable energy and electric transport because it has identified those sectors as being absolutely crucial for the future of not only China but the world.

As such, it has built environmental considerations into the core of its planning system and has targeted public investment accordingly. Rather than complaining about China’s investment in new productive forces, Europe should be following its example.

Imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable. This precedent would render any sort of green new deal out of the question.

Even the Economist acknowledges that “the potential gains to the West from a ready supply of cheap, green vehicles are simply enormous.” And, momentarily overcoming its Eurocentric instincts, it admits that Chinese cars “are not only cheap; they are better-quality, particularly with respect to the smart features in EVs that are made possible by internet connectivity.”

The article concludes that “if China wants to spend taxpayers’ money subsidising global consumers and speeding up the energy transition, the best response is to welcome it.”

Inasmuch as there’s such a thing as a sane bourgeois perspective, this is what it looks like.

In the words of former undersecretary-general of the UN and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim: “China is now the indispensable country for everything green … And all historical experiences show that if you create closed-down markets and separate markets from different parts of the world, we will all be poorer.”

For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.

Narrative of ‘overcapacity’ is a complete failure: former UN under-secretary-general

Interviewed by the Global Times, Erik Solheim describes the West’s accusations of Chinese “overcapacity” in relation to solar energy and electric vehicles as “a complete failure”.

From the perspective of combatting climate change, China is doing crucial work and blazing a trail that others should follow: “We have all called for many more high-quality green products from everyone, from China, from Europe, from the US, from everyone. Why start blaming China for doing what is expected from everyone?”

Solheim further notes that, from an economic perspective, accusations of overcapacity make little sense, “because what creates the foundation for trade is overcapacity… My nation, Norway, for example, is a big exporter of salmon… We raise and produce much more salmon than we can eat ourselves. Then we sell some to others. And then, for instance, we can import electric cars from China… We should not fear overcapacity, but we should turn it into a mutual benefit where everyone benefits from Chinese leadership in electric cars as they benefit from our production of salmon.”

Ultimately, tariffs will slow down the green transformation “because China is now the indispensable country for everything green”, given that “60 percent of all green technologies in the world are in China” and “when it comes to solar energy, maybe the figure is even more than 90 percent.”

Solheim also describes some of China’s contribution to sustainable development in the Global South: “I was living in Kenya for quite a number of good years. In Kenya, China has constructed the Mombasa-Nairobi railroad, which goes through some very vulnerable ecological areas. But it is the cleanest and most well-functioning transport system in Kenya. It’s an absolute, wonderful, green contribution to Africa.”

Erik Solheim is former under-secretary-general of the United Nations and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme. He spoke at our event Building a multipolar world – Ten years of the Belt and Road Initiative in November 2023.

GT: During your recent visit to China, you posed a photo of your morning run. What was it like to go for a morning run in Beijing? 

Solheim: It was absolutely wonderful. The sun was bright, the sky was blue. You could breathe in the fresh air. It was a nice experience and highlighted a contrast to 10 years ago when the air pollution was thick and the sky was gray. It’s such enormous progress in such a short time. There is more to be done. But China has largely won the war against pollution.

GT: In the same tweet, you mentioned: “Why doesn’t the world start competing and stop complaining about China’s green leadership?” They are complaining about China’s “overcapacity.” Do you think China has an issue of “overcapacity”?

Solheim: I think the narrative of capacity is a complete failure for two reasons.

First, this is exactly what we all have wanted. This is even what the Joe Biden administration in the US has called for. We have all called for many more high-quality green products from everyone, from China, from Europe, from the US, from everyone. Why start blaming China for doing what is expected from everyone? A few years ago, the West was complaining that China’s production was emitting too much pollution. And now they’re complaining that China is making green products.

Second, this is complete nonsense from an economic perspective because what creates the foundation for trade is overcapacity. If the US had no overcapacity in its industries for the last 100 years, it would not have become a great nation. It became great because it had overcapacity – it could produce for global markets.

My nation, Norway, for example, is a big exporter of salmon. Why? Because we have overcapacity for salmon. We raise and produce much more salmon than we can eat ourselves. Then we sell some to others. And then, for instance, we can import electric cars from China. One of the most valuable companies in the world today is Apple, an American company. Why? Because they have an overcapacity in electric smartphones. Otherwise, they would have just been in the American market and they would have been a small company. We should not fear overcapacity, but we should turn it into a mutual benefit where everyone benefits from Chinese leadership in electric cars as they benefit from our production of salmon.

GT: Are there any green cooperation projects between China and other countries that have impressed you? What are the positive impacts of those projects?

Solheim: Absolutely. Two months ago, I was in Bangladesh, where China had constructed a bridge called the Padma Bridge. It is a wonderful rail and road bridge across the Padma River. That one bridge increased the GDP of Bangladesh by 1 percent because it connects the eastern and western parts of the land. That is a wonderful support for Bangladesh.

I was living in Kenya for quite a number of good years. In Kenya, China has constructed the Mombasa-Nairobi railroad, which goes through some very vulnerable ecological areas. But it is the cleanest and most well-functioning transport system in Kenya. It’s an absolute, wonderful, green contribution to Africa. 

GT: Some observers suggest that the US doesn’t want to live in a world where the world’s foremost energy provider is China, so they’re making huge efforts to catch up and, at the same time, attempt to slow China down with initiatives like this “overcapacity” rhetoric. What’s your take on this view?

Solheim: I think there are two aspects to this view.

First, the US is deeply concerned about having a peer competitor, such as China. For the past century, the US has been the dominant global power, or the only dominant power in the world, and it’s not used to sharing that position. However, it needs to get used to the reality that China’s economy will surpass that of the US, and China will play an increasingly important role in global affairs. Additionally, the US doesn’t only need to adapt to the rise of China, but also to the rise of other powers like India, Turkey, Indonesia, and Brazil. The era of US dominance is over, and it needs to adapt to the change.

On the other hand, President Biden wants jobs for his people. It’s natural for him to be more concerned about American jobs than the jobs in Liaoning or Guangdong.

But we should also explore how the green energy boom can benefit everyone and how Chinese companies can invest in and be welcomed in Europe and North America.

For instance, Tesla was invited to come to China. China invited Tesla to a large extent to create fair competition in the electric car market in China. It helped shape BYD, Hongqi, Geely, and all the other Chinese brands. Thus, the US should invite Chinese companies to invest in America, shaping the competition in the American market. Then maybe American companies would be more cost-competitive as well.

GT: We are now seeing the US government raising tariffs on Chinese EVs, advanced batteries, solar cells, and other goods. What impact will it have on the world if the US government continues to exclude Chinese new energy products?

Solheim: It will obviously slow down the green transformation because China is now the indispensable country for everything green. 60 percent of all green technologies in the world are in China. When it comes to solar energy, maybe the figure is even more than 90 percent. If we want to go solar without China, we can do it, but it will be much more costly. When it’s more costly, it will be slower. And all historical experiences show that if you create closed-down markets and separate markets from different parts of the world, we will all be poorer, including the Americans.

GT: Do you think Europe will follow the latest policies of the US? From your understanding, how does Europe view China’s green manufacturing capacity – is it more inclined toward cooperation or vigilance?

Solheim: That’s obviously a similar discussion in Europe. I don’t think Europe will automatically follow the US, but there is a concern with jobs in Europe. China can help in that discussion in two ways.

First, making very clear that China is ready to invest in other markets where Chinese companies are, and to create jobs in Europe.

Let me give one example. Very recently, I visited Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) in Ningde, Fujian Province, the world’s largest battery maker for electric vehicles. A Tesla normally comes with a CATL battery. But the guys at CATL repeatedly told me that one of the reasons why they have grown so big was the support from BMW in the early days. BMW was a very demanding customer, it helped with technology and was a partner in the rise of CATL. That’s exactly what we want to see – companies working together across borders. And now when Chinese companies tend to have the highest quality and the best technology, they should work with companies in India, Africa, Latin America, and also Europe to share their knowledge and experience so that we can all benefit from the green transformation.

Solar power farms on plateau fuel China’s green energy revolution

The article below, republished from Xinhua, describes a remarkable story of ‘ecological civilisation’ in action, combining holistic ecological protection with poverty alleviation efforts.

Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, in China’s western Qinghai province, is host to the world’s largest solar photovoltaic power plant, with a generation capacity of 8.4 GW (which would be sufficient to provide energy to the whole of London). Nearly 3,000 meters above sea level, and exposed to extreme levels of solar radiation, it is an area that has experienced significant desertification in recent decades: “By the end of the last century, the desertification rate of the land was as high as 98.5 percent, making the solar panels installed here vulnerable to damage from the sand and gravel stirred up by strong gusts of wind.”

More recently, because photovoltaic panels reduce wind erosion on vegetation, grass has been thriving. Meanwhile, in order to maintain the grass and to prevent the proliferation of weeds, sheep have been introduced to the solar park. This has given a major boost to livestock cultivation in the region, with people in the surrounding villages now raising “photovoltaic sheep”.

The plant is thus “simultaneously generating electricity while making exemplary contributions to poverty alleviation and ecological conservation efforts.”

Amid China’s green energy revolution, the world’s largest solar photovoltaic power plant on the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau is forging a unique development path, simultaneously generating electricity while making exemplary contributions to poverty alleviation and ecological conservation efforts.

In late May, greenness finally emerged in the yellow-gray expanse of the Talatan Gobi Desert in Gonghe County, part of the Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in northwest China’s Qinghai Province.

Yehdor, a 48-year-old herder from Xaghelesi Village in Tiegai Township, leisurely rode his motorcycle, driving his flock of sheep into the solar photovoltaic power plant owned by Huanghe Hydropower Development Co., Ltd.

Yehdor is no stranger to solar photovoltaic panels, or what he calls “blue mirrors.” In 2006, he received two of these panels through a government project promoting solar power among locals. Since then, the panels have become part of his essential gear, accompanying his tent and other necessities during his six-month-long shepherding journeys each year.

“I set up the panels outside my tent, and they charged during the day, generating enough electricity to power lights and other small appliances throughout the night,” he said.

“However, they are nothing compared to these,” Yehdor added, pointing to the solar panels arranged in a matrix across 4,000 acres of desert land, sparkling like a silver-blue sea under the sun.

More than 200 sheep, a mix of black and white, were spotted roaming among the panels. As startling as it may sound, these sheep have been tasked with protecting the blue panels. Their voracious appetite, once a headache for environmentalists, has now become essential for maintaining the smooth operation of the solar power station.

In 2012, the prefecture initiated the construction of China’s first 10 million kilowatt-class solar power base in Talatan. Today, covering an area of 609 square kilometers, this solar power base boasts a power generation capacity of 8,430 megawatts, making it the largest in the world, according to Qeyang, deputy director of the administration committee of the Hainan prefectural green energy industry park.

It hosts 91 energy enterprises, which include 63 solar photovoltaic power enterprises and 28 wind power enterprises. “Green energy is the signature industry of Hainan prefecture and our annual output accounts for 54.08 percent of the total energy generated in Qinghai,” Qeyang said.

At a deliberation with the lawmakers from Qinghai during the annual session of the National People’s Congress in March 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping gave instructions to build Qinghai into a highland of clean energies, a destination of international eco-tourism and a source of green and organic farm and livestock products, stressing efforts on fostering a green, low-carbon and circular economic system.

The Qinghai provincial government, since then, has accelerated its efforts to pursue high-quality development of the green energy industry based on local conditions.

Currently, the total installed power generation capacity in Qinghai is 54,970,800 kilowatts, with clean energy accounting for 51,079,400 kilowatts, or 93 percent, of the total. Talatan is also witnessing drastic changes.

Located about 150 kilometers from Qinghai’s provincial capital, Xining, Talatan sits nearly 3,000 meters above sea level and is bombarded with intense solar radiation, which hinders plant growth. By the end of the last century, the desertification rate of the land was as high as 98.5 percent, making the solar panels installed here vulnerable to damage from the sand and gravel stirred up by strong gusts of wind.

Continue reading Solar power farms on plateau fuel China’s green energy revolution

Tariffs, technology and industrial policy

In the following article, well-known Marxist economist Michael Roberts assesses the latest set of protectionist measures taken by the Biden administration against China. Roberts notes that these measures include “a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries.” These tariffs constitute a doubling-down by President Biden on the measures introduced by the Trump administration in 2018-19.

The article observes that “Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts”, and this reflects China’s rapid advance in several key areas of green technology.

China has scaled up its green industries rapidly. It now produces nearly 80% of the world’s solar PV modules, 60% of wind turbines and 60% of electric vehicles and batteries. In 2023 alone, its solar-power capacity grew by more than the total installed capacity in the US.

Biden’s protectionist measures are being justified on the basis that they will stimulate domestic production of green technology in the US. However, Roberts argues that this is unlikely to be the outcome, given historical precedent. Previous tariffs on solar panels, introduced in 2012 and later expanded, did not revitalise the US solar industry. “On the contrary, the American global market share of the solar industry has considerably decreased since the original tariffs were placed — from 9% in 2010 to 2% today. Meanwhile, China’s share of the industry rose from 59% to 78%. There’s no reason to believe that the recent tariff increase will reverse this trend. There’s even less hope that they will help spur a domestic EV industry.”

The article also points to the irony of the US accusing China of violating WTO rules with its green tech subsidies, whilst simultaneously introducing a substantial package of its own green subsidies. “It seems that China’s industrial policy of subsidies is ‘gaming the system’, while US industrial policy of similar subsidies is just ‘protecting’ US industry.”

Rather than boosting domestic production, the tariffs are likely to have the opposite effect, by raising costs for US consumers and businesses and disrupting supply chains. The article notes that “Trump and Biden’s imposition of tariffs risks hindering the adoption of low-emission technologies by American businesses and consumers.”

In general, the US’s strategy of attempting to stifle China’s development will not be successful and will certainly not benefit the US economy; indeed “the cost to the US economy and the profitability of US industry will be considerable, and even more to the real incomes of Americans.” However, in a context where “the US is losing its imperialist profit extraction from trade with China and increasingly being squeezed out of world markets by Chinese goods”, there appears to be a bipartisan consensus on continuing with these last-ditch attempts at destabilising and weakening China, even if ultimately they prove to be a classic case of “lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own feet.”

The article was originally published on Michael Roberts’ blog on 20 May 2024.

Last Tuesday, the trade and technology war launched by the US on China back in 2019 took another ratchet up. 

The US government announced a new series of protectionist measures on Chinese goods imported into the US. It included a quadrupling of the tariff rate to 100% on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports, doubling the levy on solar cells and more than tripling the fee on Chinese lithium-ion EV batteries.  These tariffs are equivalent to an annual $18bn of Chinese goods on top of the previous $300bn slapped down under Trump. 

The new tariffs specifically target ‘green goods’, most notably EVs, but tariffs on lithium-ion batteries, critical minerals and solar cells will also be substantially increased. The measures are set to take effect this year (with the exception of graphite, where Chinese dominance is most stark, so tariffs begin in 2026).

China is the world leader in EV production and innovation.  Chinese EVs are now better and cheaper than their Western counterparts.  Biden’s intention is to stave off Chinese competition while stimulating domestic EV supply.  But China’s EV imports are only 2% of the US market.  And all the goods that these new tariffs were slapped on constitute only about 7% of US-China trade.  What this shows is that, even the US government recognizes that the US still relies heavily on Chinese goods imports and cannot cut them all dead.

That’s because the tariff and technology war is not just about protecting the ailing US auto industry.  China is totally dominant in EV manufacture because it’s also totally dominant in battery (cell) manufacture. And it’s also totally dominant in the manufacture of the chemicals that go into those cells (cathode & anodes).  

China is also utterly dominant when it comes to the refining of the materials that then go into the chemicals that then go into the cells which go into the EVs.

Continue reading Tariffs, technology and industrial policy

Building a Beautiful China: promoting harmony between humanity and nature

The following text is from a speech delivered by Xi Jinping at a national conference on ecological and environmental protection on 17 July 2023. The English translation was published in Qiushi on 11 March 2024.

President Xi reiterates the Chinese leadership’s firm resolve to build an ecological civilisation based on harmony between humanity and nature, “upholding and acting on the principle that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets.” The speech provides a detailed description of China’s environmental strategy in the areas of tackling air, land and water pollution; transitioning industry to a low-carbon development model; continuing to expand the production and consumption of renewable energy; and protecting biodiversity.

The speech makes it clear that the project of protecting the planet and building a Beautiful China is not for the government alone, but relies on the participation of the masses:

We must promote eco-friendly lifestyles. We will encourage simple, moderate, green, low-carbon, sound, and healthy lifestyles and consumption patterns, making eco-friendly transportation, conservation of water, electricity, and food, as well as garbage sorting our people’s daily practice. Party and government organizations at all levels, state-owned enterprises, and public institutions must be at the forefront of these campaigns. We will continue to launch a series of activities under the theme of ‘I’m a Contributor to a Beautiful China’ and encourage industrial parks, enterprises, communities, schools, families, and individuals to actively participate, with a view to building a society in which everyone pursues ecological progress all the time, everywhere, and in everything they do.

This vision – already becoming reality – is profoundly different to the way the ecological crisis is being handled in the West. In the US, Britain and elsewhere, governments make empty promises around renewable energy and carbon efficiency, whilst taking precious little meaningful action. Indeed they maintain fossil fuel subsidies, expand drilling for oil and gas, impose tariffs and sanctions on Chinese solar panels and EVs, and engage in ecologically ruinous military activities. Meanwhile, the capitalist class attempts to shift responsibility away from itself and on to individual consumers, who are expected to reduce their domestic energy consumption, to avoid flying, to recycle, to take shorter showers, to drive electric cars, to eat less meat and so on. The crisis is thereby, in typical neoliberal fashion, individualised, and the capitalist class is absolved of all responsibility and blame.

China is still a developing country, but it has become the clear global leader in environmental protection. It is the world’s first renewable energy superpower, responsible for over half of all wind and solar investment in 2023. The government is not shifting responsibility to individuals, but promoting coordinated action at all levels of government and society. China’s crucial advantage is its political system: the location of political power in the working people led by the CPC. The government’s goals are the masses’ goals, and hence the pursuit of a Beautiful China and the fight against climate breakdown can be prioritised. As such, Chinese socialism is rendering a profound service for all humanity.

The next five years will be crucial to building a Beautiful China. We should thoroughly implement the thinking on promoting ecological progress with Chinese characteristics for a new era, adhere to the people-centered approach, and uphold and act on the principle that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets. In our efforts to build a great country and advance national rejuvenation, we will prioritize the Beautiful China Initiative to make notable progress in this regard, and work for substantial improvements in urban and rural living environment. This will enable us to support high-quality development with a high-quality environment.

First, we must intensify the battle against pollution

We must continue to control pollution in a lawful, targeted, and science-based way, and maintain the intensity of our efforts while going deeper and wider in preventing and controlling environmental pollution and improving the quality of the environment.

The blue skies initiative is a priority in the battle against pollution. Focusing on key areas, including the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and its surrounding areas, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Fenhe-Weihe River Plain area, we will optimize the industrial structure, the energy mix, and the composition of the transportation sector, strive for synergy between emissions reduction of pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, and further reduce the concentration of fine particulate matter. We will strengthen efforts to address pollution at its source, use clean energy and centralized heating as alternatives according to local conditions, and further control pollution from bulk coal, coal-fired boilers, and industrial furnaces. We will promote high-standard transformation of the steel, concrete, and coking industries to achieve ultra-low emissions, and continue to cut the discharge of pollutants in key industries. We will strive to bring about a shift in freight transportation from highways to railways and waterways, thus increasing the proportion of railway and waterway transportation in order to reduce energy consumption and pollution from transportation. We will make great efforts to respond to people’s concerns by effectively solving their daily problems and difficulties such as noise, cooking fumes, and stench. We will strengthen coordinated pollution prevention and control across regions and take comprehensive measures to speed up the elimination of serious air pollution and protect our beautiful blue skies.

Continue reading Building a Beautiful China: promoting harmony between humanity and nature

What the US really means by overcapacity

In the article below, prominent Marxist economist and International Manifesto Group convenor Radhika Desai responds to the media hype about China’s putative “overcapacity” in renewable energy production – a story that gathered steam during US energy secretary Janet Yellen’s recent visit to China, in which she accused China of “flooding” the world’s energy markets with cheap green energy.

Radhika starts off with the very reasonable point that, given the number of climate records that were broken in 2023, “one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment”. China’s unparalleled investment in solar and wind energy have resulted in a dramatic fall in the cost of these technologies worldwide, thereby providing a powerful boost to humanity’s efforts to avoid climate catastrophe.

Furthermore, when it comes to “distorting markets” via subsidies, “the US offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies.” Indeed China’s subsidies are perfectly consistent with WTO rules.

The article notes that declining conditions of the US working class are caused not by Chinese “overcapacity” but by “pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal US policies” which have “deindustrialized the US, stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generated vast inequality”.

Radhika concludes by observing that, as a socialist government committed to the welfare of its people, China “will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized US corporations may be advanced”.

This article first appeared on CGTN.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was recently in China to talk about its “clean energy overcapacity.” What can that possibly mean? At a time when the world needs more and cheaper clean energy equipment to deal with climate change, isn’t China helping the world by making this equipment more widely available at prices more of the world can afford? Surely, that is just what the world needs in 2024.

After all, 2023 broke so many climate records. It was the warmest year on record. There were record-breaking forest fires and floods. It was the hottest northern hemisphere summer. July 2023 was the hottest month on record. Considering these facts, one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment.

Evidently, not. The U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen accused China of flooding the world with cheap clean energy exports, distorting global markets and harming workers. What explains this perversity?

The crux of the problem is the U.S.’s stance on climate change. It would be understandable if it supported solutions that were beneficial to it and its people. However, not only does the U.S. seek benefits not for its people but its corporations, it seeks solutions that not only benefit them but also put them in a dominant position.

Yellen kicked off her campaign against Chinese overcapacity at a solar energy plant in Georgia just days before she set foot in Beijing. She alleged that China had previously inflicted overcapacity in steel and aluminium and was now doing this in the clean energy sector, particular in solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. “China’s overcapacity distorts global prices and production patterns and hurts American firms and workers,” she stated.

Capacity can only be excessive in relation to demand. When the problem is labelled overcapacity the ‘solution’ is to cut (other nations’) capacity. One could always see it as a problem of restricted demand, to be solved by expanding it. U.S. elites have long approached the crisis of the 1970s as one of over-capacity and sought to deal with the problem by restricting or even reducing industrial capacity in its rivals. It did this to Japan starting in the 1990s. It is currently doing this to Europe, forcing it to deindustrialize, allegedly in order to fight the hyped-up danger that Russia poses. And now, Yellen has brought this effort to China.

If China’s industrial capacity is deemed excessive, it must be restricted so that, when such equipment becomes scarce, U.S. products of lesser quality and higher cost will find markets. It also amounts to saying that the U.S. absolutely does not wish to increase the rest of the world’s capacity to demand more by increasing development and therefore demand there.

In speaking of China distorting markets, Yellen is saying that China captures markets through subsidies. This is, of course, particularly rich when the U.S. offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies. This understanding defined the terms on which China entered the World Trade Organization in 2000. The U.S. was willing to grant these terms only because it assumed that China would be no more successful than other developing countries in using such provisions to industrialize and become a technological leader. It was wrong.

Finally, Yellen speaks of China harming U.S. workers. The sad, even macabre, reality is that U.S. workers have been harmed over all these neoliberal decades not by China but by the pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal U.S. policies. They have deindustrialized the U.S., stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generating vast inequality.

Sadly, for Yellen, China is neither Japan nor Europe but a socialist economy whose government is oriented towards advancing egalitarian development for its people. Yellen will find it willing to cooperate for the benefit of people and the planet. But it will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized U.S. corporations may be advanced.

China and the struggle for peace

The following text is based on presentations given by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez at Morning Star Readers and Supporters meetings in Manchester (19 February), Leeds (13 March) and Brighton 24 March), on the subject of China’s global strategy.

Carlos responds to the assertion by Western politicians and media that China is an aggressive and expansionist power, comparing China’s foreign policy record with that of the United States. He shows that China’s foreign policy is based on the principles of peace, development and win-win cooperation, and explains how this approach is rooted in China’s history and ideology, and is consistent with China’s overall strategic goals.

Carlos also takes note of China’s contribution to the global struggle for multipolarity and to the project of global development. He highlights the Belt and Road Initiative and China’s role in the struggle against climate catastrophe.

The text concludes:

On questions of peace, of development, of protecting the planet, China is on the right side of history. It’s a force for good. As socialists, as progressives, as anti-war activists, as anti-imperialists, we should consider China to be on our side… Those of us who seek a sustainable future of peace and prosperity, of friendship and cooperation between peoples, have a responsibility to oppose this New Cold War, to oppose containment and encirclement, to demand peace, to promote cooperation with China, to promote understanding of China, to build people-to-people links with China, and to make this a significant stream of a powerful mass anti-war movement that our governments can’t ignore.

The Manchester event was also addressed by Jenny Clegg; the Leeds event by Kevan Nelson; and the Brighton event by Keith Bennett.

I’m going to focus my remarks on China’s international relations and its global strategy. This is a subject about which there’s a great deal of misunderstanding and obfuscation, particularly in the context of an escalating New Cold War that’s being led by Washington and that the British ruling class is only too happy to go along with.

The mainstream media is full of hysteria about China’s “aggression” or “assertiveness”. When China reiterates its position on Taiwan – a position which in fact has not meaningfully changed in the last seven decades, and which is completely in line with international law – it’s accused of ramping up the threat of war.

When China refuses to go along with the US’s illegal, unilateral sanctions (for example on Russia, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Eritrea and Zimbabwe), it’s accused of “subverting the international rules-based order”.

When China establishes bilateral relations and trade agreements with Solomon Islands, Honduras, Nicaragua and Nauru, it’s accused of engaging in colonial domination.

When Chinese companies invest in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific, they’re accused of imposing debt traps.

And unfortunately much of the left takes a fairly similar position to the ruling class on these issues, considering that China’s an imperialist power, that it’s engaged in a project of expansionism.

This sort of analysis on the left leads inexorably to a position of “Neither Washington Nor Beijing”, putting an equals sign between the US and China; putting China in the same category as the imperialist powers. According to this analysis, the basic dynamic of global politics is today that of inter-imperialist rivalry between the US and China.

And of course if that’s the case, if China’s just another imperialist power, and its only interest is growing its own profit margins and competing with the US, Britain, the EU, Canada and Japan for control of the world’s resources, labour, land and markets, it goes without saying that the global working class and oppressed – the vast majority of the population of the world – cannot possibly consider China to be a strategic ally in the pursuit of a better, fairer, more peaceful, more equal, more prosperous, more sustainable world.

China’s view of international relations

How does China consider its role in the world? What does the Communist Party of China propose regarding China’s foreign relations?

What the Chinese leadership calls for is “building a global community of shared future, with the goal of creating an open, inclusive, clean and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity.”

China consistently expresses its commitment to multipolarity; to peace; to maximum and mutually beneficial cooperation around economic development and tackling climate change, pandemics, and the threat of nuclear war; to working within the context of the UN Charter and international law in support of peaceful coexistence.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi, at his recent Meet the Press session, talked of China “advocating vigorously for peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit”, and urged that “countries should rise above their differences in history, culture, geography and system, and work together to protect the Earth, the only inhabitable planet for us all, and make it a better place.”

Xi Jinping often talks about China’s orientation towards peace: “Without peace, nothing is possible. Maintaining peace is our greatest common interest and the most cherished aspiration of people of all countries.”

All of this is of course a pretty beautiful and compelling vision. But to what extent does it line up with reality? To what extent is China actually working towards peace, development and sustainability? To what extent does China diverge from the model of international relations pursued by the US and its imperialist allies?

Continue reading China and the struggle for peace

Martin Jacques: China will reach climate goal while West falls short

In this concise opinion piece for the Global Times, Martin Jacques discusses the extraordinary progress made by China in recent years in green technology, in particular solar photovoltaics, wind energy and electric vehicles.

China is already “by far the biggest producer of green tech”, and the gap is widening. As such, “it looks as if China’s voice on global warming will carry an authority that no other nation will be able to compete with.”

Martin observes that China is becoming a major exporter of green technology, and that its investment and innovation has driven an unprecedented decrease in prices globally, most notably for renewable energy. “China’s dramatic breakthrough in new green technologies is offering hope not just to China, but to the whole world, because China will increasingly be able to supply both the developed and developing world with the green technology needed to meet their global targets.”

This should of course be a boon for the green transition in the West, but the author points out the contradiction between the goals of saving the planet and pursuing a New Cold War against China: “How can the West become dependent on China for the supply of these crucial elements of a carbon-free economy when it is seeking to de-risk (EU) or decouple (US) its supply chains from China?”

Martin describes the West’s protectionist response to China’s green tech as “a petty and narrow-minded response to the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced”, and urges politicians to cooperate with China on ecological issues and to embrace its contribution to the shared global project of protecting the planet.

Martin Jacques is a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, and the author of the best-selling book “When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order.”

There has been constant low-level sniping in the West against China’s record on climate change, in particular its expansion of coal mining, and its target of 2060 rather than 2050 for carbon zero. I have viewed this with mild if irritated amusement, because when it comes to results, then China, we can be sure, will deliver and most Western countries will fall short, probably well short. It is now becoming clear, however, that we will not have to wait much longer to judge their relative performances. The answer is already near at hand. 

We now know that in 2023 China’s share of renewable energy capacity reached about 50 percent of its total energy capacity. China is on track to shatter its target of installing 1200GW of solar and wind energy capacity by 2030, five years ahead of schedule. And international experts are forecasting that China’s target of reaching peak CO2 emissions by 2030 will probably be achieved ahead of schedule, perhaps even by a matter of years. 

Hitherto, China has advisedly spoken with a quiet voice about its climate targets, sensitive to the fact that it has become by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter and aware that its own targets constituted a huge challenge. Now, however, it looks as if China’s voice on global warming will carry an authority that no other nation will be able to compete with.

There is another angle to this. China is by far the biggest producer of green tech, notably EVs, and renewable energy, namely solar photovoltaics and wind energy. Increasingly China will be able to export these at steadily reducing prices to the rest of the world. The process has already begun. It leaves the West with what it already sees as a tricky problem. How can it become dependent on China for the supply of these crucial elements of a carbon-free economy when it is seeking to de-risk (EU) or decouple (US) its supply chains from China? 

Climate change poses the greatest risk to humanity of all the issues we face today. There are growing fears that the 1.5-degree Celsius target for global warming will not be met. 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded. Few people are now unaware of the grave threat global warming poses to humanity. This requires the whole world to make common cause and accept this as our overarching priority. 

Alas, the EU is already talking about introducing tariffs to make Chinese EVs more expensive. And it is making the same kind of noises about Chinese solar panels. The problem is this. Whether Europe likes it or not, it needs a plentiful supply of Chinese EVs and solar panels if it is to reduce its carbon emissions at the speed that the climate crisis requires. According to the International Energy Authority, China “deployed as much solar capacity last year as the entire world did in 2022 and is expected to add nearly four times more than the EU and five times more than the US from 2023-28.” The IEA adds, “two-thirds of global wind manufacturing expansion planned for 2025 will occur in China, primarily for its domestic market.” In other words, willy-nilly, the West desperately needs China’s green tech products.

Knee-jerk protectionism demeans Europe; it is a petty and narrow-minded response to the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. Instead of seeking to resist or obstruct Chinese green imports, it should cooperate with China and eagerly embrace its products. As a recent Financial Times editorial stated: “Beijing’s green advances should be seen as positive for China, and for the world.”

The climate crisis is now in the process of transforming the global political debate. Hitherto it seemed relatively disconnected. That period is coming to an end. China’s dramatic breakthrough in new green technologies is offering hope not just to China, but to the whole world, because China will increasingly be able to supply both the developed and developing world with the green technology needed to meet their global targets. Or, to put it another way, it looks very much as if China’s economic and technological prowess will play a crucial role in the global fight against climate change. 

We should not be under any illusion about the kind of challenge humanity faces. We are now required to change the source of energy that powers our societies and economies. This is not new. It has happened before. But previously it was always a consequence of scientific and technological discoveries. Never before has humanity been required to make a conscious decision that, to ensure its own survival, it must adopt new sources of energy. 

Such an unprecedented challenge will fundamentally transform our economies, societies, cultures, technologies, and the way we live our lives. It will also change the nature of geopolitics. The latter will operate according to a different paradigm, different choices, and different priorities. The process may have barely started, but it is beginning with a vengeance. Can the world rise to the challenge, or will it prioritize petty bickering over the vision needed to save humanity? On the front line, mundane as it might sound, are EVs, wind power, and solar photovoltaics.

Marxian Ecology, East and West: Joseph Needham and a non-Eurocentric view of the origins of China’s ecological civilisation

We are pleased to reproduce the below article by John Bellamy Foster, editor of the prestigious socialist journal, Monthly Review, who is also professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, concerning the contributions of the late Dr. Joseph Needham (1900-1995) to the understanding of the deep roots of China’s views on an ecological civilisation in particular and the dialectical nature of much of traditional Chinese philosophy and culture more generally. The article is especially important in that, whilst the contribution of Needham, who, at the time of his death was described by Britain’s Independent newspaper as “possibly the greatest scholar since Erasmus”, to the understanding of science and civilisation in China, the title of his monumental, multi-volume, lifelong work, remains known in some relevant academic circles, for example through the work of the Needham Research Institute, and somewhat more generally through a popular biography by Simon Winchester, his lifelong Marxism, and his significant contributions to Marxist theory, have been all but forgotten.

Bellamy Foster begins by posing the question as to why the most developed version of ecological Marxism is to be found today in China and argues:

“The answer is that there is a much more complex dialectical relation between East and West with respect to materialist dialectics and critical ecology than has been generally supposed, one that stretches back over millennia.”

He further explains that:

“Materialist and dialectical conceptions of nature and history do not start with Karl Marx. The roots of ‘organic naturalism’ and ‘scientific humanism,’ according to the great British Marxist scientist and Sinologist Joseph Needham (李約瑟), author of Science and Civilisation in China, can be traced to the sixth to third centuries BCE both in ancient Greece, beginning with the pre-Socratics and extending to the Hellenistic philosophers, and in ancient China, with the emergence of Daoist and Confucian philosophers during the Warring States Period of the Zhou Dynasty.”

In ‘Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West’, a 1969 book by Needham, the author noted “the absolute alacrity with which ‘dialectical materialism’ was taken up in China during the Chinese Revolution… The Marxian materialist dialectic, with its deep-seated ecological critique rooted in ancient Epicurean materialism, was in Needham’s view, so closely akin to Chinese Daoist and Confucian philosophies as to create a strong acceptance of Marxian philosophical views in China, particularly since China’s own perennial philosophy was in this roundabout way integrated with modern science. If Daoism was a naturalist philosophy, Confucianism was associated, Needham wrote, with ‘a passion for social justice.'”

Bellamy Foster further notes that: “The Needham thesis, as presented here, can also throw light on the spurious proposition, recently put forward by cultural theorist Jeremy Lent, author of The Patterning Instinct, that the Chinese conception of ecological civilisation is derived entirely from China’s own traditional philosophy, rather than being influenced by Marxism. Lent’s argument fails to acknowledge that ecological civilisation as a critical category was first introduced by Marxist environmentalists in the Soviet Union in its closing decades, and immediately adopted by Chinese thinkers, who were to develop it more fully.”

He acknowledges that, “of course, the Needham thesis may seem obscure at first from the usual standpoint of the Western left”, one reason being a “deep Eurocentrism characteristic of contemporary Marxism in the West, associated with the systematic downplaying of colonialism and imperialism.”

But, also citing the work of the late Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin, Bellamy Foster quotes Needham as explaining that “the basic fallacy of Europocentrism is therefore the tacit assumption that because modern science and technology, which grew up indeed in post-Renaissance Europe, are universal, everything else European is universal also.” However, Bellamy Foster continues:

“Marxist thought and socialism in general have always been radically opposed to Eurocentrism, understood as the ideology of Western colonialism. This is as true of Marx and Frederick Engels, particularly in their later years, as it was of V.I. Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg. In the twentieth century, moreover, the impetus for revolution shifted to the Global South and its struggle against imperialism, generating in the process new Marxist analyses in the works of figures as distinct as Mao Zedong, Amílcar Cabral, and Che Guevara, all of whom insisted on the need for a world revolution.”

Whilst it is possible to point to traces of European ethnocentrism in some of Marx’s early work, Bellamy Foster notes that, by the late 1850s, he had “become increasingly focused on the critique of colonialism, actively supporting anti-colonial rebellions, and progressively more concerned with analysing the material and cultural conditions of non-Western societies.” This was “further facilitated by the ‘revolution in ethnological time’ with the discovery of prehistory and the rise of anthropological studies, occurring in tandem with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.” In this regard, Bellamy Foster draws a line of demarcation with the recent influential work, ‘Marx in the Anthropocene‘ by the Japanese Marxist Kohei Saito.

Bellamy Foster draws out the connection between Needham’s pioneering work and Xi Jinping’s thoughts on this issue, citing Chinese scholar Huang Chengliang explaining that “the theoretical origins of Xi Jinping’s thought on Ecological Civilisation can be traced to five sources: (1) Marxist philosophy, integrating “the three fundamental theories of ‘dialectics of history, dialectical materialism and dialectics of nature’”; (2) traditional Chinese ecological wisdom on “[human]-nature unity and the law of nature”; (3) the actual historical context of ecological governance in China in response to the ecological crisis; (4) struggles to develop a progressive and ecological model of sustainable development; and (5) the articulation of ecological civilisation as the governing principle of the new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

He concludes:

“In Xi’s analysis, the traditional Chinese emphasis on the harmony of humanity and nature, or the view that ‘the human and heaven are united in one,’ is wedded to Marxian ecological views with a seamlessness that can only be explained in terms of Needham’s thesis of the correlative development of organic materialism in both the East and West, with Marxism as the connecting link. From this perspective, the Chinese notion of ecological civilisation, due to its overall theoretical coherence and coupled with China’s rise in general, is likely to play an increasingly prominent role in the development of ecological Marxism worldwide. As Needham wrote: ‘China has in her time learnt much from the rest of the world; now perhaps it is time for the nations and the continents to learn again from her.’”

This article, first published in Monthly Review, is based on a talk presented online to the School of Marxism, Shandong University, in Jinan, in March 2023 and was revised and expanded from an original published version, printed in International Critical Thought, a journal of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Ecological materialism, of which ecological Marxism is the most developed version, is often seen as having its origins exclusively within Western thought. But if that is so, how do we explain the fact that ecological Marxism has been embraced as readily (or indeed, more readily) in the East as in the West, leaping over cultural, historical, and linguistic barriers and leading to the current concept of ecological civilization in China? The answer is that there is a much more complex dialectical relation between East and West with respect to materialist dialectics and critical ecology than has been generally supposed, one that stretches back over millennia.

Materialist and dialectical conceptions of nature and history do not start with Karl Marx. The roots of “organic naturalism” and “scientific humanism,” according to the great British Marxist scientist and Sinologist Joseph Needham (李約瑟), author of Science and Civilization in China, can be traced to the sixth to third centuries BCE both in ancient Greece, beginning with the pre-Socratics and extending to the Hellenistic philosophers, and in ancient China, with the emergence of Daoist and Confucian philosophers during the Warring States Period of the Zhou Dynasty.1 As Samir Amin indicated in his Eurocentrism, the “philosophy of nature [as opposed to metaphysics] is essentially materialist” and constituted a “key breakthrough” in tributary modes of production, both East and West, beginning in the fifth century BCE.2

In Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West in 1969, Needham noted the absolute alacrity with which “dialectical materialism” was taken up in China during the Chinese Revolution and how this was treated as a great mystery in the West. Nevertheless, the sense of mystery, he contended, did not extend in the same way to the East itself. He wrote: “I can almost imagine Chinese scholars,” confronted with Marxian materialist dialectics, “saying to themselves ‘How astonishing: this is very like our own philosophia perennis integrated with modern science at last come home to us.’”3 The Marxian materialist dialectic, with its deep-seated ecological critique rooted in ancient Epicurean materialism, was in Needham’s view, so closely akin to Chinese Daoist and Confucian philosophies as to create a strong acceptance of Marxian philosophical views in China, particularly since China’s own perennial philosophy was in this roundabout way integrated with modern science. If Daoism was a naturalist philosophy, Confucianism was associated, Needham wrote, with “a passion for social justice.”4

The Needham convergence thesis—or simply the Needham thesis, as I am calling it here—was thus that Marxist materialist dialectics had a special affinity with Chinese organic naturalism as represented especially by Daoism, which was similar to the ancient Epicureanism that lay at the foundations of Marx’s own materialist conception of nature. Like other Marxist scientists and cultural figures associated with what has been called the “second foundation of Marxism,” centered in Britain in the mid-twentieth century, Needham saw Epicureanism as providing many of the initial theoretical principles on which Marxism, as a critical-materialist philosophy, was based.5 It was the similar evolution of organic materialism East and West—but which, in the case of Marxism, was integrated with modern science—that explained dialectical materialism’s profound impact in China.6

Continue reading Marxian Ecology, East and West: Joseph Needham and a non-Eurocentric view of the origins of China’s ecological civilisation

Chinese modernisation is the modernisation of harmony between humanity and nature

In the following article, which was originally published in the English language July/August 2023 edition of Qiushi, the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of China (CPC), Wang Guanghua, the Minister and Secretary of the CPC Leadership Group of China’s Ministry of Natural Resources, introduces the thesis put forward at the CPC’s 20th National Congress regarding “the need to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts via a Chinese path to modernisation and pointing out that Chinese modernisation is the modernisation of harmony between humanity and nature.”

Noting that “Marxism states that ‘man lives on nature’ and humanity lives, produces, and develops by continuously interacting with nature,” Wang argues that: “President Xi’s innovation explains the interdependence between humans and the natural world, as well as their mutually reinforcing dialectical unity, and it is a succinct expression of contemporary Marxism in China as well as 21st century Marxism in the area of ecological conservation. The ecological wisdom embodied in China’s traditional culture constitutes the national soil and cultural roots of the theory of harmony between humanity and nature in Chinese modernisation.” Xi Jinping, he continues, has “integrated the essence of Marxist thought with the best of China’s traditional culture and with the common values that our people intuitively apply in their everyday lives, thus infusing modernisation theory with distinctive Chinese features.”

The CPC has led the Chinese people in exploring how to achieve the country’s modernisation since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949. This has included, “theoretical and practical investigations of how to approach the relationship between humanity and nature. Mao Zedong pointed out that the CPC’s task is to focus on building modernised industry, agriculture, science and culture, and national defence. He also called for conservation of mountains and rivers as well as afforestation.”

After detailing a number of the practical steps that China has taken, Wang continues:

“China has an enormous population that exceeds the total population of the world’s developed countries. Nevertheless, our per capita resources and factors of production are below the global average levels, and we have limited and unevenly distributed land suitable for living and working as well as a lack of focus on ecological protection and restoration in the past. We also face new challenges, such as global climate change and frequent extreme weather events. Our population has peaked, and we are experiencing population aging, declining fertility, and varying regional trends of population growth and decline, all of which are having a profound impact on our management of territorial space. We must improve our awareness of the issues we face and approach problems, make decisions, and act based on our national conditions. We must fully consider resource and environmental carrying capacities and endowments and keep developing new thinking, new approaches, and new ways to effectively resolve problems.”

And he draws a clear line of demarcation with the modernisation paradigm followed under capitalism:

“In the modern era, the modernisation of Western countries has largely been at the expense of resources and the environment. In addition to creating substantial material wealth, it has led to issues including environmental pollution and resource depletion, which have created tension between humans and the natural environment and seen nature take merciless revenge at times. To promote modernisation of harmony between humanity and nature, we must strive to avoid the environmental issues that have arisen in the course of Western capitalist modernisation and renounce the old approach of ‘pollute first, clean up later.’ We must stay committed to green, low-carbon development and adhere to the basic requirement of pursuing protection amidst development and development amidst protection. We must also allocate resources equitably and rationally within and between generations, so that the present generation and those to come can enjoy abundant material wealth while also being able to enjoy stars in the night sky, lush mountains, and fresh flowers.”

“The fundamental objective of the modernisation of the harmony between humanity and nature,” the Minister insists, “is to serve and benefit the people.”

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) held in October 2022 expounded the theory of Chinese modernization, emphasizing the need to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts via a Chinese path to modernization and pointing out that Chinese modernization is the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature. The congress also stressed the need to uphold and act on the principle that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets and to maintain harmony between humanity and nature when planning development. This represents an important innovation in modernization theory, the latest theoretical innovation of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Conservation, and a practical requirement for advancing ecological conservation.

I. The logic of the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature

Since its 18th National Congress, the CPC has built on existing foundations to make innovative breakthroughs in theory and practice that have successfully advanced and expanded Chinese modernization. 

From a theoretical perspective, the theory of harmony between humanity and nature in Chinese modernization is the crystallization of the wisdom of Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of our times 

The cornerstone of this theory is Marxist thought on the relationship between humanity and nature. Marxism states that “man lives on nature” and humanity lives, produces, and develops by continuously interacting with nature. Chinese President Xi Jinping inherited and developed this Marxist thought, which he has combined with the specific realities of ecological conservation in China to propose the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature. President Xi’s innovation explains the interdependence between humans and the natural world, as well as their mutually reinforcing dialectical unity, and it is a succinct expression of contemporary Marxism in China as well as 21st century Marxism in the area of ecological conservation. The ecological wisdom embodied in China’s traditional culture constitutes the national soil and cultural roots of the theory of harmony between humanity and nature in Chinese modernization. Always respecting and loving nature, the Chinese people have cultivated rich ecological elements in the culture during more than 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. President Xi has developed philosophical concepts from traditional Chinese culture, such as the unity of humanity and nature and “The Dao follows what is natural,” and integrated the essence of Marxist thought with the best of China’s traditional culture and with the common values that our people intuitively apply in their everyday lives, thus infusing modernization theory with distinctive Chinese features and adding original contemporary elements to traditional Chinese culture.

Continue reading Chinese modernisation is the modernisation of harmony between humanity and nature

The West is not living up to its responsibilities on climate change

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez – a slightly expanded version of an opinion piece written for the Global Times – discusses the controversies and difficulties setting up the loss and damage fund agreed at last year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP27).

Noting that the fund is an application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), which principle lies at the core of international environmental law, the article points out that the rich countries have consistently failed to meet their clear legal and moral responsibility to provide the technology and finance to ensure the Global South can continue to develop, industrialise and modernise without causing significant environmental harm. The best-known example of this is the rich nations’ failure to meet their commitment, made in 2009, to channel $100 billion per year to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy systems.

The imperialist powers have developed the bad habit of blaming China for everything that goes wrong. In terms of environmental questions, Western politicians and journalists deflect criticism of their own slow progress on green energy by essentially assigning China culpability for the climate crisis. Carlos points out that, firstly, China is a developing country and thus has different responsibilities under the framework of CBDR; secondly, China has emerged as the pre-eminent force in renewable energy, electric transport, biodiversity protection, afforestation and pollution reduction. Furthermore it’s working with other countries of the Global South on their energy transitions.

The article concludes by calling on the wealthy countries to stop blaming China and to focus instead on meeting their own responsibilities.

The most significant outcome of last year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) was an agreement to set up a “loss and damage” fund to help climate-vulnerable countries pay for the damage caused by the escalating extreme weather events linked to climate change, such as wildfires, heatwaves, desertification, rising sea levels and crop failures. It is widely estimated that the level of funding needed for this purpose will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, warmly applauded this agreement, for which the developing countries – including China – had fought long and hard. “We have determined a way forward on a decades-long conversation on funding for loss and damage – deliberating over how we address the impacts on communities whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by the very worst impacts of climate change.”

The fund is an application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), agreed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Under this principle, the developed countries have a duty to support developing countries in climate change adaptation and mitigation. All countries have a “common responsibility” to save the planet, but they vary in their historical culpability, level of development and availability of resources, and thus have “differentiated responsibilities”.

CBDR lies at the core of international environmental law, and is a key demand of those campaigning for climate justice. It recognises that development is a human right, and that the countries of North America, Europe, Japan and Australia fuelled their own development with coal and oil; they got rich while colonising the atmospheric commons. The US and Europe alone are responsible for just over half the world’s cumulative carbon dioxide emissions since 1850, although representing just 13 percent of the global population.

Therefore the primary moral, historical and legal responsibility is on the developed countries to provide the technology and the finance such that the Global South can continue to develop, industrialise and modernise without causing significant environmental harm.

Unfortunately, in the year since COP27, precious little progress has been made in terms of setting up the loss and damage fund. There have been numerous disagreements about which countries will contribute and which will benefit, and the US and other advanced countries have been firmly resisting the idea that contributions should be mandatory. Meanwhile the developing countries have had to accept the fund being hosted by the World Bank – which is seen as being essentially a policy instrument of the United States.

This is a familiar story. At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, the rich nations pledged to channel 100 billion US dollars per year year to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy systems. Respected environmental journalist Jocelyn Timperley wrote that, “compared with the investment required to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the 100 billion dollar pledge is minuscule”; and yet the promise has never been kept. The US spends upwards of 800 billion dollars a year on its military, but seems to be almost entirely unresponsive to the demands of the Global South for climate justice.

‘Blaming China’ has of course become the go-to option for Western politicians seeking to escape accountability and divert attention from their own failures. Various representatives from the wealthy countries have suggested that China – as the world’s second-largest economy and highest overall emitter of greenhouse gases – should contribute to the loss and damage fund in order for it to be fair and viable. Wopke Hoekstra, EU commissioner for climate action, recently commented: “I’m saying to China and others that have experienced significant economic growth and truly higher wealth than 30 years ago, that with this comes responsibility.”

The notion that China has the same duties as North America and Western Europe means turning the principle of CBDR on its head. China is a developing country, with a per-capita income a quarter of that of the US. It is still undergoing the process of modernisation and industrialisation.

Meanwhile, although it is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, its per capita carbon emissions are half those of the US, in spite of the US having exported the bulk of its emissions via industrial offshoring. Chinese emissions are certainly not caused by luxury consumption like in the West – average household energy consumption in the US and Canada is nine times higher than in China.

Furthermore, according to the World Food Programme, China is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, with up to 200 million people exposed to the effects of droughts and floods.

From the very beginning of the international discussions around managing climate change, China has stood together with, and taken up the cause of, the developing countries. Indeed, China was one of the countries arguing vociferously for the loss and damage fund to be created.

China has nevertheless emerged as a global leader in the struggle against climate breakdown. According to an analysis by Carbon Brief, China’s carbon dioxide emissions are expected to peak next year, six years ahead of schedule. Given China’s extraordinary investment in renewable energy – its current renewable capacity is equivalent to around half the global total, and is rising fast – there’s every likelihood that it will reach its goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 or sooner.

Meanwhile China is making a profound contribution to assisting other countries of the Global South with their energy transitions. Nigerian journalist Otiato Opali writes: “From the Sakai photovoltaic power station in the Central African Republic and the Garissa solar plant in Kenya, to the Aysha wind power project in Ethiopia and the Kafue Gorge hydroelectric station in Zambia, China has implemented hundreds of clean energy, green development projects in Africa, supporting the continent’s efforts to tackle climate change.”

While politicians and journalists in the West tend to ignore China’s successes in renewable energy, they loudly decry its construction of new coal plants. However, a recent Telegraph article provided an exception to this rule, noting that the approval of new coal plants “does not mean what many in the West think it means. China is adding one GW of coal power on average as backup for every six GW of new renewable power. The two go hand in hand.” That is, coal plants are being installed to compensate for the intermittency problems of renewable energy, and will therefore be idle for most of the time.

The US, Canada, Britain, the EU and Australia are all making insufficient progress on renewable energy, and are failing to meet their commitment to supporting energy transition in the Global South. By sanctioning Chinese solar materials and imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, they are actively impeding global progress. Their proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has led to a dramatic expansion in the production and transport of fracked shale gas, at tremendous environmental cost.

These countries should stop pointing the finger at China and start taking their own responsibilities seriously. Let us hope we see some evidence of this at COP28.

Xi-Biden summit offers hope for a de-escalation in the New Cold War

On Wednesday 15 November 2023, Presidents Xi Jinping and Joe Biden held what was described in Xinhua as “a positive, comprehensive and constructive summit, charting the course for improving and developing bilateral ties” during a four hour meeting in which “the two heads of state had a candid and in-depth exchange of views on strategic and overarching issues critical to the direction of China-US relations and on major issues affecting world peace and development.”

The summit hopefully represents an important step forward in terms of reducing tensions – tensions which, it must be said, have been generated exclusively by the US side as part of its New Cold War and its strategy of containing and encircling China and suppressing its rise. The Xinhua report cites Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett on President Xi’s agreeing to the summit in spite of a long series of US provocations:

“It is a journey of a peacemaker and of a responsible leader and statesman with a sense of great responsibility to his people, the times, history and humanity as a whole.”

Of particular and urgent importance is the agreement signed between the two countries to step up their cooperation on tackling climate change and protecting the environment. The Global Times article we republish below notes that “China and the US agreed to jointly tackle global warming and operationalize a working group focused on areas including energy transition, methane, the circular economy and resource efficiency, low-carbon development and deforestation.”

However, the article correctly warns that “Washington should also take concrete actions and not walk back its own promises on climate cooperation.” At a time when the US is imposing sanctions and tariffs on Chinese renewable energy materials, and when China has emerged as the world’s leading renewable energy power, the US needs to demonstrate its seriousness when it comes to preventing climate breakdown.

We also republish below an interesting article by John Wojcik in People’s World, written shortly before the Xi-Biden summit, summarising the state of US-China relations and detailing how “those relations have been made unstable by continued U.S. attacks on and propaganda against China’s economic and political interests.” Wojcik calls on the US to work urgently and intensively with China on the pressing issues facing all humanity:

“At home in the US, Biden has to do battle with powerful fossil fuel capitalist interests to realize any of his environmental goals. In China, he could have a great friend with whom to cooperate on these matters.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping trying to repair damage done by Biden

People’s World, 15 November 2023

Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting near San Francisco Wednesday, a get-together at which Biden claims he hopes to “stabilize” relations with China. He doesn’t mention, of course, that those relations have been made unstable by continued U.S. attacks on and propaganda against China’s economic and political interests.

The Biden administration has consistently tried to dictate to China that it end its friendly relations with Russia and numerous other countries, and it has levied all kinds of sanctions against countries that China deals with and against China itself.

Biden continues to hypocritically express concern about human rights in China even as his administration funds and fuels Israeli-propagated genocide in Gaza.

The two leaders, who are meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Forum summit, reportedly haven’t even spoken to one another in over a year. The U.S. hasn’t been silent during that period when it comes to China, though, having used every excuse to mount major propaganda campaigns against the Asian nation.

The two countries, for example, have long surveyed the military and other activities of one another, but the U.S. blew into major proportions the issue of a harmless balloon that had wandered off course over U.S. territory.

The U.S. flies armed airplanes over and near Chinese waters and has, on occasion, almost collided into Chinese planes over the South China Sea.

Also, during the year that the two leaders have not spoken, the U.S. has, without any proof, campaigned against what it says are Chinese intentions to “take over” Taiwan, an island off the coast of China that actually does belong to China—a reality even the U.S. recognizes.

Biden has used as justification for his war against Russia in Ukraine the excuse that “winning” in Ukraine is an essential first step in halting Chinese aggression against Taiwan. There has been, needless to say, no such aggression against Taiwan by China.

At the San Francisco meeting, according to the White House PR people, Biden is seeking to show the world that while the U.S. and China are economic competitors, they are not locked in a major battle for supremacy with global implications.

That flies in the face of reality, though, since his administration and hosts of top U.S. lawmakers constantly identify China as the “main security threat” facing the U.S.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The main security threat facing the U.S. is the threat of fascism and right-wing domestic terror coming from within our own borders.

China, unlike the U.S., is not involved in any military conflict anywhere in the world. It is the U.S., not China, that has 800 military bases scattered all around the world. A good chunk of these U.S. bases encircle China, and U.S. nuclear subs constantly patrol waters off China’s east coast. The Chinese have no such equivalent, so the reasonable question to ask is: “Who is a security threat to whom?”

The U.S., determined to be the world’s top gun, has also sought to control what nations China deals with around the world. The U.S. has tried to force China to end its neutrality in the Ukraine-Russia War, and it has condemned Chinese attempts to offer a peace plan to end that war. There, too, the U.S. backed what has now proven to be the blowing up of the Nordstream Pipeline by Ukraine. Imagine how the U.S. would react if China did anything like this.

The Biden administration also sees China, a big buyer of Iranian oil, as having considerable leverage with Tehran, and despite the economic relations between those two countries, it tries to get China to cut all ties with Iran and join its campaign against that country.

Again, imagine how the U.S. would react if China patrolled U.S. waters with nuclear missile submarines, flew its warplanes over Long Island or San Francisco Bay, and told the U.S. to stop backing the countries responsible for genocide in Gaza and the blowing up of international energy infrastructure.

Even as Biden claims he wants improved relations, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Biden was “not going to be afraid to confront where confrontation is needed on issues where we don’t see eye to eye.”

Continue reading Xi-Biden summit offers hope for a de-escalation in the New Cold War

Life for Angolans is changing for the better with the support of China

The following article, first published in Global Times, is based on an interview with João Baptista Borges, Angolan Minister of Energy and Water.

Borges, who was attending the Third Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, addresses the accusations of “debt trap” that have been leveled against the China-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). He calls such claims “untrue and unfair”, noting that the infrastructure projects China is involved in – related to energy systems, water treatment and more – “have benefited millions of Angolans” and that Angola’s cooperation with China “is very important and strategic for us in terms of the great changes it has brought to our lives… If you ask anybody in Angola, they will tell you that our lives have changed with these supports from China.”

Borges insists that Angola’s participation in the BRI is based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, and that Angola makes its own decisions about what projects to pursue. “China has never imposed any projects on us; each project was selected by us.”

Furthermore, while Angola is a major fossil fuel producer, it is developing ambitious plans to carry out a green transition, and considers that Chinese experience and investment will be crucial in this regard. “We are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars to construct solar power plants and hydro transmission systems in order to eliminate gradually the consumption of fossil fuels. Our priority is really to transform our economy in order to provide not only more power but also clean power to the people at affordable prices.”

The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has generated numerous opportunities for partner countries, including Angola, as noted by João Baptista Borges, the Angolan Minister of Energy and Water, in an exclusive interview with the Global Times, during which he conveyed appreciation for the positive changes that Chinese companies have contributed to his country’s development, notably in sectors including water, energy supply, and green transformation.

The Angolan minister has also refuted the West’s intensified allegations over the so-called “debt trap” issue targeting the initiative, calling it both “untrue and unfair.”

These remarks were made on the sidelines of his visit to China on behalf of Angolan President João Lourenço to attend the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRF), which was held in Beijing from Tuesday to Wednesday.

China’s increased support for Angola can be traced back to the early 2000s when the country was emerging from a decades-long civil war and was in dire need of extensive rebuilding, the minister said.

At that time, there was a pressing need for rebuilding, and the country had already begun receiving substantial financial support from the Chinese government for various critical infrastructure projects, such as water and energy supplies, Borges explained.

The cooperation with China has later increased substantially, with a range of major projects, including water treatment systems and transmission systems, being built to help secure the energy supply of the country and improve the living standards of local people.

Continue reading Life for Angolans is changing for the better with the support of China

The East is Still Red – and green

In the following book review of Carlos Martinez’s The East is Still Red – Chinese socialism in the 21st century, Stefania Fusero provides a detailed summary of the chapter on China’s environmental record (China is building an ecological civilisation), including a discussion of China’s trajectory on ecological issues, its commitment in the last two decades to renewable energy development, its record on afforestation, and its leadership in eco-friendly transport.

Stefania also sums up the book’s position as to why China, of all countries, has emerged as the uncontested world leader in renewable energy and biodiversity protection:

China’s economic development proceeds according to state plans, not market anarchy. As a result, the interests of private profit are subordinate to the needs of society.

Unfortunately, the Western world remains oblivious to China’s advances, on the one hand because of a racist assumption that ‘civilised’ European-origin peoples should be leading the way on such matters, and on the other hand because “China’s successes in this and other areas risk demonstrating the fundamental validity of socialism as a means of promoting human progress”.

This book review was first published in Italian in La Città Futura and has been translated into English by the author.

The East is Still Red can be purchased in paperback and digital formats from Praxis Press.

Carlos Martinez’s book provides us with a wide-ranging overview of 21st century China, but in this article, I am going to focus exclusively on the chapter entitled “China is Building an Ecological Civilisation.” Although ecology is rightfully one of the most debated topics both among policymakers and at a grassroots level, we know hardly anything about the environmental policies pursued by and in the People’s Republic of China. Through Martinez’s book we get an exhaustive and detailed picture of them.

With the proclamation of the PRC on October 1, 1949, China began the long journey of emancipation of its people from poverty and underdevelopment, which would lead it to pull hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty a few years ago.

The economic development of the PRC, just like previously that of Europe, the US and Japan, was mainly based on coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, which until two decades ago made up around 80 percent of China’s energy mix. Faced with the choice between economic development resulting in environmental degradation or underdevelopment with environmental conservation, the Chinese leadership chose development.

“The abundance of cheap fossil fuel energy enabled China to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, whilst simultaneously establishing itself as a global leader in science and technology, thereby building a foundation for the construction of a modern and sustainable socialist society.”

It is thanks to that choice that China, although still a developing country, is no longer poor. At the same time, however, the effects of the industrialisation process have amplified and aggravated China’s natural vulnerability to climate change – it is one of the countries most prone to ecological disasters, with 200 million people exposed to the effects of droughts and floods; with nearly a quarter of the world’s population, China has only 5% of the planet’s water resources and 7% of the arable land.

Environmental issues have therefore become a top priority and the CPC has focused, especially in the last decade, on the transition to a green development model. If in the 1980s they made GDP growth one of their top priorities, at the 19th Congress of the CPC in 2017 Xi Jinping announced that the main contradiction that Chinese society now faces is that between unbalanced and inadequate development and the needs of people for an ever-better life.

Already in 2014 Xi Jinping wrote in The Governance of China: “We must strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. We will be more conscientious in promoting green, circular, and low-carbon development. We will never again seek economic growth at the expense of the environment.”

If the concepts of growth and development remain a priority on the Chinese leadership’s agenda, “innovative, coordinated, green, open and inclusive” growth and development opportunities that preserve nature are now being pursued. Such a view shifts the development goal “from maximising growth to maximising net welfare”, in the words of influential Chinese economist Hu Angang.

Continue reading The East is Still Red – and green