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
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Let’s set the record straight and revisit what really happened in China.
It was on September 30, 75 years ago, the second year of the new China, Premier Zhou Enlai sent a clear and solemn message to the world: "The Chinese people enthusiastically love peace, but in order to defend peace they never have been and never will be afraid to oppose aggressive war." He put the United States on notice, stating unequivocally, "The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate foreign aggression, nor will they supinely tolerate seeing their neighbours being savagely invaded by imperialists."
A Calculated Defense, Not a Love for War
When war broke out, was it because China has a penchant for conflict? Absolutely not. On October 27, 1950, Mao Zedong laid out the strategic reality with stark clarity. He explained that if China simply ignored the Korean issue, it would be a critical error, warning that American imperialism would inevitably press its advantage, following the same aggressive path Japan had taken against China, but potentially with even greater ferocity.
Mao vividly described this as America's attempt to stick three sharp knives into China—one at its head via Korea, one at its waist via Taiwan, and one at its feet via Vietnam. Therefore, he reasoned, China's decision to resist America and aid Korea was a necessary defensive move, aimed squarely at preventing this strategic encirclement from succeeding.
In an interview with American journalist Anna Louise Strong on August 6, 1946, Mao was asked if there was hope for a peaceful solution. His answer was direct: "As far as our own desire is concerned, we don't want to fight even for a single day. But if circumstances force us to fight, we can fight to the finish." When pressed about the atomic bomb and a potential US attack on the Soviet Union from bases in Iceland, Okinawa, and China, his perspective remained firm.
Calling America's Nuclear Bluff
For the United States, the atomic bomb was a tool of mass slaughter, and the moral dilemma of "nuclear war casualties" was never a serious concern. Just weeks into the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the US Congress was already pushing to consider nuclear strikes on cities in Korea and Northeast China. The BBC even reported that "On 9 December 1950, MacArthur formally requested the authority to have the discretion to use atomic weapons."
This is where Mao Zedong’s famous declaration that "all reactionaries are paper tigers" proved prophetic. He argued, "The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the U.S. reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't.” As for the atomic threat, he added: “Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by the people, not by one or two new types of weapons."
And history bore him out. A BBC report from the time noted that by 1951, a Soviet military buildup in the Far East, particularly bombers and submarines, had Washington spooked. Britain had also grown fearful that an American nuclear attack would turn US military bases in the UK into targets for Soviet retaliation. Although Truman sent nuclear-capable B-29s to Guam in March 1951 and reconnaissance flights scouted targets over Northeast China and Shandong, the administration ultimately backed down. They concluded a nuclear attack on China was "too risky" and withdrew the bombers a few months later.
Having seen China’s resolve in Korea, the US changed its strategy. It pivoted to the Cold War tactic of "Containment" hoping to ensnare China in the same trap that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. While America’s wishful thinking is a key reason for the absence of major power wars in recent decades, it inadvertently gave China a crucial window of peace to focus on its own progress.
A New Era of Benevolent Power
Mencius once said, "He who uses force while feigning benevolence is a hegemon, and a hegemon must have a large state; he who rules by practicing benevolence is a true king, and a true king does not depend on a large state." In other words, a power that relies on military might while only pretending to be virtuous is a hegemon, needing a large territory and population to dominate. But a true leader who rules through morality and genuine benevolence can achieve greatness without needing to be a large state.
So, will a stronger China become a hegemon and replace the US on the world stage? This question looms large, especially for its smaller neighbors. But today's China, with its vast territory and population, is focused not just on serving its own people but on building a "community with a shared future for mankind." While true kingship doesn't require a large state, it's also undeniable that a large state can achieve it through benevolence.
Today's China is not the same as the states of the ancient warring periods. It is a nation built on five thousand years of history and culture, armed with advanced science and technology. China's peaceful rejuvenation isn't just a slogan—it's a reality in the making.
