China’s Climate Charade: A Green Façade for Economic Supremacy
A trifecta of global meetings last month laid bare the geopolitical chessboard of climate and energy policy, spotlighting the tussle between the US and China for economic and energy dominance. In his speech to the annual IMF and World Bank Spring Meeting in Washington, DC, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivered a two-fold message to officials of the two Bretton Woods institutions. First, he emphasised that fossil fuels are critical for developing nations, decrying the eco-zealots’ stranglehold on global finance. Second, he pointed out that both institutions failed in their approach to China: the World Bank by continuing to treat China as a ‘developing’ country with ready access to concessionary finance, and the IMF by refusing to call out the country for its mercantilist trade policies and resulting global current account imbalances.
In London, the joint IEA-UK Summit on the Future of Energy Security saw Acting Assistant Secretary for the US Department of Energy Tommy Joyce assert fossil fuels’ indispensable role for reliable power, clashing with UK and EU representatives’ ideological insistence that only renewables ensure energy security. He highlighted the reliance on China which dominated global supply chains for rare minerals used in the renewable energy sector such as wind and solar, electric vehicles and batteries. He suggested that this reliance necessitates Western concessions to coercion from China antithetical to the former’s energy security.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Thus, China depends for over 60% of its electricity generation on coal, with renewables providing about 20%…”
…Meaning “China’s combined wind and solar capacity has exceeded that of thermal power” is just an internal loss-leader, amply compensated for by dominating external sales and supply chains of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.
Follow the money.
And the irony.
Yep, so all China are doing is playing the same pretend to save the planet climate change game as the eco socialist west has been doing for the last 2 decades. The mutual enemy is Trump who isn’t pretending to save the planet. —–Because make no mistake climate change is and has never been about saving the planet. It is all about WEALTH and RESOURCES. It is not just a scientific issue. It is about ECONOMICS, POLITICS, MORAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES. —–There is no CLIMATE CRISIS.
Dr Doshi it might be illuminating to commission a series of articles exploring how climate propaganda is bought and taught at our great universities. Lord Charles Moore for Cambridge, Oxford Climate Research Network, Charlotte Gill passim. Follow the money, as skeptics like to say.
The British empire was built on coal, the American on oil, now China is muscling in with electricity. And what China understands more than anyone is that to bring in change, you need to be ruthless in destroying the old.
Excellent review, thank you.
I’m very suspicious about this so-called Western idealism. I think this is probably more a case of thorough corruption of our political class using appeals to idealism to hide that they’re really planning to sell us down to river for the benefit of China etc. Miliband certainly doesn’t seem to the brightest guy, however, he certainly understand what is financially good for himself and equally certainly, doesn’t exactly have strong emotional ties to the UK or much love for its indigenuous population.
I know this: Xi is a very, very clever chap.
That’s the guy who insisted on treating a respiratory infection as antisocial behaviour problem until hunger revolts broke out in Chinese cities. While he’s certainly full of himself, I don’t think he’s particularly clever outside of whats required to handle the CCP.
Assuming the CO₂ emissions are a indeed problem, it’s absolutely not reasonable to argue that developed countries must atone for their past sins while global CO₂ emissions keep rising because of large developing countries like China or India because this doesn’t address the supposed problem at all. If there’s a climate crisis because of CO₂ emissions, CO₂ emissions must come down quickly in meaningful quantities. “Guilt and atonement” playacting in the name of some abstract concept justice cannot accomplish this. Hence, people who demand that don’t want to accomplish it and – obviously – don’t really believe in a climate crisis themselves.
Exactly, it’s nonsense – like saying vehicle emissions are causing a health crisis, but if you pay the congestion charge you can drive where you like.
China is just promoting its own industries while remaining sensible in a world filled with Western hysterics. The West is irrationally convinced of an impending climate catastrophe and demands huge numbers of nature-destroying wind turbines and poisonous solar panels. China is happy to supply such materials but is not so daft as to pursue such disastrous policies itself. Second, he pointed out that both institutions failed in their approach to China: the World Bank by continuing to treat China as a ‘developing’ country with ready access to concessionary finance, and the IMF by refusing to call out the country for its mercantilist trade policies and resulting global current account imbalances. China is laughing all the way to the bank and they are right to do so. But what is meant by “global current account imbalances”? The fact that China is economically doing better than USA? Is that supposed to be a crime? Xi’s April speech celebrates the ‘Beautiful China‘ initiative, touting renewable energy leadership, afforestation and a 2060 carbon neutrality pledge. At least the Chinese are (supposedly) promoting afforestation rather than the West’s deforestation, clearing forests and agricultural land for wind and solar farms, as well as to feed the… Read more »
But what is meant by “global current account imbalances”?
Trumps usual beef with everyone: China exports more to the USA as it imports from there (and probably generally exports more than it imports).