Fossil Fuels vs. Green Transition at COP30

The highly anticipated 30th Climate Change Conference just concluded in Belém, Brazil. This conference has brought together world leaders, scientists, and NGOs to discuss major issues related to climate change.

Since Trump took office, the United States has gradually abandoned the green energy policies of the Democratic administration and begun a significant retreat from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s bias towards Israel on Middle East issues has exacerbated tensions in the region.

In addition, the Trump administration has exerted maximum pressure on Venezuela, deploying troops to its borders in an attempt to seize Venezuelan oil through military force.

Moreover, the Trump administration has also adopted a strategy of maximum pressure on Russia, not only condoning Ukraine’s continued attacks on Russian energy facilities but also continuing to unite European countries in imposing oil sanctions on Russia.

This conference was held against the backdrop of this series of major global changes.

At the meeting, many countries put forward their views. For example, Colombia and other countries requested a vote on the roadmap for withdrawing from fossil fuels, a move that was strongly opposed by China.

So why does China strongly oppose voting to withdraw from the fossil fuel roadmap? Some Western media with ulterior motives have denounced China’s opposition as “irresponsible towards the environment,” which is a completely malicious fabrication and slander.

Many people believe that fossil fuels are merely a form of energy, but this is a misconception. Fossil fuels are not only used to refine gasoline and diesel to power vehicles such as cars and ships, but they are also essential chemical raw materials. Important raw materials such as ethylene can be extracted from petroleum to manufacture important chemicals like plastics and rubber.

Plastics, in particular, are the cornerstone of modern human civilization; almost everything we use today is inseparable from plastics. The manufacturing process also requires pipes and other components made of plastics and rubber to complete factory production.

In other words, we can reduce our use of fossil fuels, but we cannot completely eliminate them, because the chemical raw materials needed for plastics and rubber, such as ethylene, are cheapest to extract from fossil fuels. Green energy currently cannot provide the chemical raw materials like ethylene required by modern industry, or the raw materials it provides are extremely expensive.

If chemical raw materials such as ethylene cannot be extracted cheaply, the products produced will be extremely expensive, leading to a loss of international competitiveness. This will not only cause imported hyperinflation but also result in high domestic costs, ultimately leading to the disastrous consequence of deindustrialization.

These negative consequences are precisely what European countries are currently facing. Due to aggressive environmental policies, European countries have generally experienced extremely high production costs, forcing European companies to leave for China or the United States.

This trend became even more pronounced after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. Because Europe cooperated with the United States in sanctioning Russia, it lost access to cheap Russian energy supplies, further accelerating Europe’s deindustrialization. European environmental parties, with US funding, such as the German Green Party, even went so far as to blow up their own power plants—a foolish act that jeopardizes Europe’s industrial future.

Europe, once proud of Industry 4.0, is now in a dangerous situation where its debt is about to explode.

The motivation behind South American countries’ proposed roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels is also questionable. It is reported that oil extraction in Guyana is heavily controlled by ExxonMobil of the United States, and recently Trump has even deployed troops to Venezuela, forcing Maduro to hand over Venezuelan oil extraction rights. Against the backdrop of the United States strengthening its control over oil, Colombia’s proposed roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels is highly suspicious.

Behind these motions, is there a scheme by the United States to deindustrialize China? Since the United States did not participate in the COP30 discussions, if China abides by the agreement to withdraw from fossil fuels, and the United States does not participate at all, then all of China’s high-quality enterprises will flow to the United States to making US great again?!

This is the fundamental reason why China strongly opposes withdrawing from the fossil fuel roadmap.

China is the world’s most powerful industrial nation, possessing the world’s most complete industrial chain. Of course, China needs a large amount of fossil energy to extract products such as ethylene cheaply to supply the world with Chinese-made goods. Cheap fossil energy is a powerful source of power for Chinese manufacturing and cannot be cut off.

Admittedly, we must cherish our Earth. However, cherishing the Earth and protecting the environment must be balanced with economic development.

We cannot destroy the environment for the sake of economic development, nor can we reject economic development for the sake of environmental protection. These are all flawed and biased ways of thinking.

If we are talking about protecting the environment, then primitive society is the most primitive form. Are we asking the entire world to abandon modern civilization and retreat to the primeval jungle? That’s simply inconceivable.

So-called environmental protection is actually a conspiracy orchestrated by the United States.

On the one hand, they demand that other countries destroy their industries and power generation, forcing them back to a primitive state; on the other hand, they refuse to give up fossil fuels and use thuggish tactics to plunder other countries’ oil resources globally.

Their aim is to bring global wealth and industry back to the United States to “make America great again” and impoverish other countries once more.

This thuggish behavior and double standards of the United States are disgusting!

Standing on the side of global economic development, China, representing the Southern countries, refuted the double standards of the United States. Colombia, which has suffered from American bullying and humiliation, should have joined the Southern countries in opposing American bullying, but instead, it spoke up for the United States, talking about a “roadmap to withdraw from fossil fuels,” which is truly puzzling.

Countries like Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, and Guyana possess the Amazon rainforest, often referred to as the “lungs of the Earth,” and their desire to protect the environment is understandable. However, we should balance the use of fossil fuels with green energy, rather than completely phasing out fossil fuels, which is impossible.

Overall, COP30 was a conference of unity and victory.

It gave the Global South a rare opportunity to voice their opinions and allow diverse viewpoints to collide, which was a very good thing. We should use the COP conference to strengthen our awareness of environmental protection.

The Global South should prioritize economic development rather than implementing radical environmental policies; otherwise, the tragedy that happened in Europe may be repeated elsewhere, which is something we do not want to see.

Of course, as a key member of the BRICS countries and a deep partner with the Global South nations, China can provide some economic compensation to countries affected by climate change.

With an annual trade surplus of $1 trillion, China could allocate 20%-30% of this surplus, or $200-300 billion, to establish a COP-specific assistance fund.

This fund would provide economic aid to countries affected by climate change, such as the Republic of Tuvalu, which is facing imminent submersion, and help Tuvaluans settle and live in third countries.

Furthermore, China could launch a transnational initiative, inviting major oil-producing and consuming countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States to join, to establish a $500 billion fund to support the global green energy transition. This would provide economic support to countries willing to undergo a complete economic transformation, and also provide financial support to countries with important forest resources, such as those surrounding the Amazon rainforest, Venezuela, Brazil, and Guyana, to protect these natural resources.

Join the Conversation:
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives

📌 Follow Xiaoguang Yin on Substack