German media: While China's efforts to reduce emissions show initial results, the U.S. government is giving a green light to carbon dioxide emissions
Time Weekly published a commentary stating that while China's efforts to reduce emissions have shown initial results, the U.S. government has given a green light to carbon dioxide emissions, thus bringing new difficulties to the fight against global warming.
The Time Weekly published a commentary stating that while the world's second-largest economy, China, has achieved its emission reduction goals ahead of schedule, the world's largest economy, the United States, has issued an invitation for unlimited emissions to the entire world. The commentary, titled "We Have Witnessed a New Chapter in Energy History," stated:
"Of course, Trump and his advisors' decisions will not change climate change itself. It will not change the physical laws, nor the atmospheric chemistry, nor the 'radiative forcing,' the undeniable fact that greenhouse gases cause atmospheric temperature rise. But the decision by the U.S. government does have an impact on global efforts to protect the climate. Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plays a key role in climate protection in the United States, it ensures that federal states cannot interpret their environmental protection obligations arbitrarily. EPA regulations set a uniform minimum standard for environmental and climate protection throughout the country. The agency's determination that carbon dioxide is harmful laid the legal foundation for limiting harmful gas emissions from cars and power plants. Now, all of this is in question."
In contrast, China's situation is exactly the opposite: development of clean energy is supported and centrally planned at the national level. Moreover, the development of clean energy is progressing rapidly and may have already achieved a milestone breakthrough. Lauri Myllyvirta, a China expert, wrote on the professional platform CarbonBrief: 'China's carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 1% in the last quarter of 2025.' Myllyvirta is one of the globally recognized authorities on Chinese industrial and energy statistics. Based on his latest data, he estimates that 'China's total emissions for the year are likely to have decreased by about 0.3%.'
More importantly, Myllyvirta's analysis aligns with the previous picture: since March 2024, China's emissions have not been increasing. This is different from the temporary decline during the pandemic period. Now, more and more signs indicate that China's energy transition is having structural impacts. So far, the Beijing government has always set the goal of 'peaking emissions by 2030', meaning that carbon dioxide emissions will start to decrease annually from 2030 onwards. Current signs suggest that China may have already achieved this goal ahead of schedule."
The Time Weekly commentary pointed out that with the EPA granting a 'green light' for carbon dioxide emissions, the two major countries, China and the United States, will take divergent paths in the field of climate emissions: China's emissions continue to decline, while those of the United States will rise again. The commentary said: 'This is a contradictory and tragic historical moment, which will therefore be recorded in human history.'
"Today, we are experiencing a serious metabolic disorder. Fossil fuels bring huge ecological and social costs, which is already an undeniable consensus. The climate crisis is no longer something for the future but an immediate reality. At the same time, a nation that once played a significant political role in history is desperately defending the traditional energy model of oil, natural gas, and even coal."
But a new superpower is growing through increasingly clean economic models, and the world is changing before our eyes. Experts have begun to discuss so-called 'electricity nations,' and China may take the lead in this area. For us Germans, Europeans, and all non-superpowers, this historical turning point raises a question: Which path will we choose? It is not a simple either-or choice, not a choice between following the United States back to the past or following China into the future. Although from a betting perspective, who will end up in a dead end seems obvious.
This historical moment also serves as a warning that we should not rely on any side: neither on shale gas and related political coercion, nor on cheap imported solar technology. Since the era is changing, Europeans should seize the opportunity to shape our own, locally-based energy structure."
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1857272355309568/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.