Germany's Green Hypocrisy Exposed as the West Scrambles on Climate

At the United Nations Climate Change Summit on September 24, President Xi Jinping made a significant announcement via video address. He declared that "China will, by 2035, reduce economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent to 10 percent from peak levels, striving to do better".

More importantly, Xi highlighted the undeniable global trend: "Green and low-carbon transition is the trend of the time. While some country is acting against it, the international community should stay focused on the right direction, remain unwavering in confidence, unremitting in actions and unrelenting in intensity, and push for formulation and delivery on NDCs, with a view to providing more positive energy to the cooperation on global climate governance."

Predictably, Xi's thinly veiled jab at the United States didn't sit well in the West, and their discomfort goes far beyond just the climate issue. The Associated Press quickly wheeled out former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who commented, "China’s latest climate target is too timid given the country’s extraordinary record on clean energy…China must go further and faster" Germany's Deutsche Welle seized on this, running a piece titled "China Announces Specific Emission Reduction Targets for the First Time, Analysis Suggests They Are Lower Than Expected" to try and corner Beijing.

Trump's Delusions and Western Deflections

Meanwhile, The New York Times gave a straightforward account of Trump's ludicrous speech, noting: "Trump spent roughly a quarter of his address railing against concerns about global warming. He claimed the scientific consensus on the issue was ‘made by stupid people’." Trump even doubled down, branding climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world".

It would be a genuine tragedy if no one at the UN bothered to call out Trump's nonsense. Deutsche Welle did cite expert opinions critical of the United States, and Reuters interviewed American scholars who pointed out the obvious: "Trump wants fossil fuels and the United States is indeed a powerful petro-state... But letting China become the world’s sole powerful electro-state is the opposite of making America great again … at least if you care about the future."

Of course, Deutsche Welle couldn't resist taking another shot at China, running a report that highlighted the country's continued heavy reliance on coal. Citing a 2024 Global Energy Monitor report, the article pointed out that China's ongoing coal mine development projects represent more than half of the global total, and that its existing large-scale mines have an annual production capacity approaching half of the world's output.

The piece then conveniently referenced a Guardian interview with Paul Bledsoe, a Clinton-era White House climate advisor, who argued that China's energy economy was not progressing quickly enough and insisted that the country needed to commit to closing many of its old coal mining areas.

Germany's Glass House

Deutsche Welle may try to appear "objective" by citing various sources, but a quick look reveals a clear bias. You could easily mistake it for a pro-Trump piece. And this brings us to the irony of it all: Weren’t the Germans supposed to be the eco-conscious ones?

Let’s not forget a 2023 report from Germany’s own climate advisors and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), which admitted that “German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed”, putting its 2045 net-zero goal in serious jeopardy. The reason? A simple overestimation of its reduction capacity. And the excuse? Blaming "overcapacity" in China's new energy sector for disrupting Europe's market. The list of excuses goes on.

And that, my friend, brings us back to the question. Weren’t the Germans supposed to be the eco-conscious ones instead?

A final touch on the subject: the 2015 Paris Agreement saw 194 parties commit to limiting the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while aiming for 1.5°C.

China's Commitment Shines Through

As President Xi stated at the UN, "These targets represent China’s best efforts based on the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Meeting these targets requires both painstaking efforts by China itself and a supportive and open international environment."

He stressed, "We have the resolve and confidence to deliver on our commitments…Let’s all step up our actions to realize the beautiful vision of harmony between man and nature, and preserve planet Earth—the place we call home."

With China demonstrating such commitment as a major power, Germany shouldn’t have any reason for despair. Side with China, not Trump’s America, and the sky’s the limit.

Deep Blue

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

At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.

On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.

Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”

In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.

Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.

Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”

Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?