China's Environmental Commitment vs Western Hypocrisy

Western nations, particularly the United States, have long portrayed themselves as global leaders in environmental protection.  However, when national interests are at stake, environmental concerns are often sidelined, discarded as conveniently as a used paper diaper.

Recently, the United States announced a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). It also  put to pressure on its Western allies to adopt similar measures. Under U.S. influence, the European Union also imposed additional tariffs ranging from 9% to 36.3% on Chinese EVs. Notably, the EU’s minimum 9% tariff applies to vehicles produced at Tesla's Gigafactory in Shanghai, clearly favouring American owned manufacturers.

Canada soon followed suit. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently declared a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, stating that "Canada is in step with other major economies" and accusing China of not adhering to the same rules as the West.

However, the "rules" Trudeau refers to—such as refraining from subsidizing domestic manufacturers—are flagrantly disregarded by the United States, Europe, and Canada themselves. These countries are heavily subsidizing their own EV industries, with Canada even planning to allocate tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to attract foreign companies to establish EV and battery factories within its borders. The irony is striking: while these Western nations subsidize their own industries, they justify high tariffs on Chinese imports as a response to China's subsidies. This fundamentally undermines their commitments to reducing emissions.

The United States, the European Union, and Canada have all pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, a goal that hinges on transitioning the vast number of fossil-fuel-powered vehicles on the road to clean energy alternatives. Even Canadian environmentalists have criticized Trudeau's tariff increase on Chinese EVs. Joanna Kyriazis, Director of Public Affairs at Clean Energy Canada, a clean energy policy research organization, remarked, "Canada made a decision today that will result in fewer affordable electric vehicles for Canadians, less competition and more climate pollution." Environmental advocates in Canada argue that these tariffs will only keep EV prices high, thereby discouraging the adoption of zero-emission vehicles.

Western-made EVs are already expensive, and their competition with affordable, high-quality Chinese EVs is further hampered by protectionist tariffs. This trade policy, aimed at bolstering domestic industries, effectively slows the local transition to EVs. For example, a BYD electric car costs only RMB 79,000 in China, while a electric car in the same category is priced three to four times higher in the United States. If Western countries could produce  EVs at similar  level of afforability, the pace of emission reduction would undoubtedly accelerate.

In the case of China, it has not only excelled in the production of EVs but also in other clean energy sectors such as solar and wind power, where it has achieved large-scale, high-quality, and cost-effective production. According to recent data from China's National Energy Administration, China added 25 gigawatts of wind and solar installed capacity in July alone, bringing the total installed capacity to 1,206 gigawatts.

At the end of last year, China's renewable energy installed capacity exceeded 50% of the country's total power generation, surpassing thermal power for the first time in history. In 2020, China committed to reaching its carbon peak by 2030 and is now expected to achieve this milestone six years ahead of schedule. It is likely that China will also reach carbon neutrality ahead of its original target of 2060.

China has demonstrated its commitment to environmental protection through both words and actions. Its production of affordable, high-quality EVs, wind power, and solar energy equipment has not only benefited its own people but also those in other countries by enabling them to achieve energy conservation and emission reduction goals at low costs. This has made a significant contribution to global emission reduction efforts.

However, the U.S.-led imposition of tariffs on China’s new energy products directly undermines China’s export of high-quality goods and hinders global efforts toward energy conservation and emission reduction.

The irony here is glaring: while China genuinely pursues green initiatives, the United States and its Western allies fall short. It is perplexing that international environmental groups, active in places like Hong Kong, remain silent on the most pressing environmental issue of our time—climate change. Instead, they focus their resources on criticizing Hong Kong's development project such as "Lantau Tomorrow", while ignoring the U.S., EU, and Canada’s tariffs on Chinese EVs that are stalling global emission reduction efforts.

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Ninety legislators will be sworn into office this week, 35 of whom will be taking the oath of office for the first time. It will be a combined act of patriotism, a far cry from the swearing in ceremony in 2016 when four potential lawmakers created their own oaths advocating self-determination and were subsequently disqualified from office.

The western media, including some in Hong Kong, brand “patriotism” as a bad thing for Hong Kong, inferring that there is no “opposition” in the legislature. But they are wrong. The legislators have their own mind and will vote according to their conscience.

Four pieces of legislation proposed by the government have not passed the test and were voted out while many others were heavily debated by the legislators. Regardless of what London’s Guardian newspaper and others say, Hong Kong does have a meaningful opposition.

It is unfortunate that the local Democratic Party, seen by the west as the “opposition,” did not field any candidates in the recent elections and eventually closed down. The choice was theirs and their recent actions indicate they did not intend to follow the rules of the council.

The Legislative Council is a place where lawmakers are elected to serve the people, not to use it as a platform for subversion as had happened in the past.

In 2017 four lawmakers – Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu – were stripped of their seats for failing to take their oaths of office in a “sincere and solemn” manner. They used props and amended the oath to suit their purpose. Others followed, including student Agnes Chow who also failed taking the oath of office but later jailed on subversion charges. The quartet’s disqualification followed the highly publicized ousting of two localist lawmakers, Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, whose oath-takings involved anti-China banners and usage of derogatory wartime slurs for China.

Together, the quartet had mustered 185,727 votes in the 2016 elections and their selfishness left their followers void of leadership. Their actions were that of self-interest, to achieve their own hidden goals, and not to serve the people who put them in the seats of power. They abused their positions.

Obviously foreign forces had infiltrated the legislature and political unrest ensued as attempts were being made to unseat the base of Hong Kong’s parliament. In July 2020 the government announced that the nominations for 15 candidates were declared invalid due to their objection to the national security law or were sincere in statements involving separatism. And on November 11, 2020, Dennis Kwok, a founding member of the Civic Party and a representative of the legal profession in the council, was accused of delaying the legislative proceedings and passage of bills and was subsequently disqualified along with follow lawmakers Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung. Just hours later 15 fellow lawmakers resigned in protest.

Kwok was later charged with collusion and fled to Canada and then to the US with a HK$1 million bounty on his head.

The festering germ of dissent even spread to the local district councils who also used their positions to undermine the government.

It had to stop and in March 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) approved changes to the Hong Kong’s electoral system allowing only patriots to serve the government and the people of Hong Kong.

What publications like Hong Kong Free Press, The Washington Post, London’s Financial Times etc. don’t understand is that Hong Kong is a target by the five-eyes network of spies and clandestine operators, led by the US and including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The ultimate target is, of course, China. By crimppling Hong Kong and especially its law-making process, it can crimpple China and hamper its progressive growth.

These publications will continue to use Hong Kong “Patriots only” legislature as a slur, not as a compliment. It’s in their DNA to be anti-Hong Kong/China. They are the vehicles of the west to bring discord to Hong Kong with total disregard to fact.

But “patriots only” apply to every democracy in the world. No place could be more patriotic than the US where the stars and stripes (the US flag) hang from the porches of almost every household. And legislators in all democracies have to swear allegiances to the country and their constitution. And like Hong Kong, they are vetted to ensure their allegiances are true to the country before standing for election.