While climate initiatives in Western democracies are increasingly politicized, China is advancing its climate agenda as a strategic economic lever. Beijing’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10% below peak levels by 2035 may appear modest from a scientific standpoint, but the broader significance lies in industrial positioning rather than emission targets alone. The country is leveraging decarbonization to cement dominance in clean technology supply chains, control critical raw materials, and shape the financial architecture of the global energy shift. In contrast, political instability in the U.S., U.K., and Europe is introducing uncertainty that undermines investor confidence. Capital is responding accordingly, flowing toward systems with policy predictability.
China already commands over 80% of global solar panel production, leads in wind turbine manufacturing, and has overtaken Japan as the top exporter of electric vehicles. Its influence extends upstream: it refines more than 70% of the world’s cobalt, 60% of lithium, and nearly 90% of rare earth elements—key inputs for green technologies. Any nation pursuing a low-carbon transition will either depend on Chinese supply or face significantly higher costs to source alternatives. As highlighted in Generation Investment Management’s 2025 Sustainability Trends Report, “the energy transition, for now, carries a Made in China label.”
By achieving economies of scale, China has driven down clean-tech prices, accelerating adoption in emerging markets such as Pakistan, Brazil, and Indonesia. According to Generation IM, the pace of clean technology deployment is now a major factor in national economic competitiveness. Countries integrating decarbonization into growth strategies attract more investment, while those lagging face rising capital costs.
Corporate finance reflects similar dynamics. CDP’s latest Disclosure Dividend report reveals that firms with strong climate disclosure and transition plans benefit from a 12% lower cost of capital and are 15% more likely to secure long-term institutional funding. Transparent reporting reduces perceived risk and signals resilience to financial markets.
China’s state-led model has internalized these principles. On a recent Morgan Stanley webcast, strategists noted that capital markets favor companies embedded in Chinese clean-tech networks due to their operational predictability. Policy continuity translates into investor trust. BloombergNEF reported that global transition investments reached $2.1 trillion in 2024, with renewables alone attracting $386 billion in the first half of 2025—much of it channeled toward firms linked to Chinese supply chains.
Beijing is also expanding its influence through financial mechanisms. Its 2025 National Carbon Market Progress Report confirms plans to develop cross-border carbon trading. Rich Gilmore, CEO of Carbon Growth Partners, described this as a pivotal moment: “China recognizes the economic and geopolitical openings created by U.S. retreat and sees carbon markets as a strategic tool to capitalize on them.”
If firms in developed nations begin purchasing Chinese carbon credits to meet compliance goals, China could dominate not only the physical infrastructure of the energy shift but also its financial governance.
China is also signaling greater global responsibility. At the WTO, it announced it would forgo special developing-country treatment in future negotiations—a move interpreted as distancing from protectionist norms. Additionally, it joined Brazil, Norway, the U.K., and Germany in supporting the $125 billion Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which incentivizes forest conservation. These actions position China as a constructive global actor while others retreat.
Meanwhile, climate policy in the U.K. is being drawn into partisan conflict. Conservative leadership contender Kemi Badenoch, aiming to counter Reform Party pressure, has proposed repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act—the legislation that established binding carbon budgets and created the independent Climate Change Committee. Ed Matthew of E3G criticized the idea as “a monstrous act of economic and environmental vandalism… anti-science, anti-growth, anti-health and anti-nature.” While not official policy, such rhetoric injects uncertainty, framing climate action as a cultural battleground rather than an economic imperative. For investors, even the threat of policy reversal increases risk perceptions.
The U.S. faces deeper institutional risks. The administration is moving to overturn the 2009 Endangerment Finding—the scientific and legal basis allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Without it, regulations on vehicles, power plants, and industrial emissions lose legal grounding. Analysts warn this would dismantle the foundation of American climate policy.
This threatens a rapidly growing sector: in 2024, U.S. clean-energy employment expanded three times faster than the overall workforce, adding approximately 100,000 jobs to surpass 3.5 million total, with 82% of new energy positions in clean technology. Undermining the regulatory framework could jeopardize one of the nation’s most dynamic job markets.
Al Gore, chair of Generation IM, stated at the report’s launch that abandoning climate action “is irresponsible, nothing short of a tragedy.” He emphasized that stepping back while low-emission technologies advance globally will erode U.S. competitiveness. For financial markets, the outcome is clear: increased policy volatility leads to higher risk premiums.
In Europe, climate policy has become a political wedge. The 2024 European Parliament elections strengthened far-right factions, prompting the center-right to soften Green Deal components, recasting environmental rules as threats to sovereignty and economic performance. Narratives around living costs and farmer protests have gained traction. Analysts observe a continent-wide backlash emerging in political platforms and legislative committees. Even the European Commission has warned that climate disinformation is weakening public support.
The result is slower, less predictable legislation—exactly the kind of instability that deters investment. At a time when stable policy frameworks are becoming competitive advantages, Europe risks appearing indecisive. This contrasts sharply with China’s coordinated strategy, where scale and direction reinforce investor trust.
Other developing economies are recognizing the economic potential. At the 2025 Africa Climate Summit, leaders declared they are not passive victims but active contributors, positioning the continent as a future renewable energy hub. In India, efforts to decarbonize the iron and steel sector—among the most emissions-intensive industries—are gaining momentum, driven by environmental pressures and strategic interests. Both regions treat land, food, and energy as interconnected elements of economic strength.
Moral arguments are also gaining ground. In October 2025, Pope Leo called for a “true ecological conversion,” urging citizens to demand stronger government action and citing initiatives like the Vatican’s solar program and interfaith climate collaborations. The Pontifical Academies warned that delays amplify systemic risks—economic, social, and health-related—echoing financial analyses that policy certainty reduces risk premiums.
The economic case for proactive climate resilience continues to strengthen. A joint study by Boston Consulting Group and the World Economic Forum estimated that climate-related health impacts could result in $12.5 trillion in losses by 2050, with productivity declines exceeding $1.5 trillion in sectors like agriculture and construction. Chinese policymakers view clean energy, pollution control, and adaptation as essential for workforce protection and long-term stability.
Delay is not cost-free. The IMF finds that climate shocks and inconsistent policy reduce long-term growth and elevate risk premiums, with compounding effects over time. Swiss Re projects that in scenarios of delayed or absent action, global GDP could be up to 18% smaller by mid-century. NGFS models indicate that “disorderly” transitions—marked by late or fragmented policies—will require more abrupt and expensive adjustments than early, coordinated pathways.
The costs are already materializing. The WEF reports trillions in damages from climate events, and a recent European Environment Agency analysis found that average annual weather-related losses doubled to €44.5 billion between 2020 and 2023, with cumulative EU losses reaching hundreds of billions.
As the U.S. weakens the legal basis for climate regulation, the U.K.’s opposition threatens to dismantle foundational legislation, and Europe faces regulatory drift, the economic consequences of delay are evident—from elevated risk premiums to massive climate-related damages.
The central challenge is no longer about setting the most ambitious targets. It is about building infrastructure, securing resources, and earning investor confidence. In this arena, scale outweighs rhetoric—and currently, China holds both advantages. Without renewed commitment elsewhere, Beijing will not only lead in decarbonization hardware but also shape the rules of the low-carbon global economy.
— news from Forbes
— News Original —
China’s Climate Push Is An Economic Power Play
While climate policy in major industrialized democracies is increasingly treated as a culture war, China is treating it as an economic strategy. Beijing’s new pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 7–10% below its peak by 2035 looks modest against the demands of climate science. But focusing only on that number misses the real story. China is using climate action to lock in industrial dominance, secure critical resources, and design the financial plumbing of the global transition. Meanwhile, the U.S., U.K., and Europe are letting short-term politics inject volatility into climate action. Investors are already voting with their capital, and their confidence. n nModest Target, Bigger Ambition n nBeijing’s climate play is less about the exact percentage of emissions reduction at home, and more about who controls the infrastructure, resources, and financial systems of the global transition. China is turning climate action into industrial advantage, financial leverage, and geopolitical influence. n nChina already produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels, dominates global wind turbine manufacturing, and last year surpassed Japan as the leading exporter of electric vehicles. Its grip on the upstream resources underpinning these industries is equally formidable: refining over 70% of cobalt, 60% of lithium, and nearly 90% of rare earths. Any country seeking to build a low-carbon economy will either buy from China or pay a steep premium to avoid doing so. Generation Investment Management’s 2025 Sustainability Trends Report put it bluntly, “for the foreseeable future, the energy transition comes with a Made in China stamp.” n nAt the same time, by driving down costs through scale, China has accelerated clean-tech uptake in countries from Pakistan to Brazil to Indonesia. Generation IM’s analysis showed that clean technology deployment is now one of the strongest determinants of national competitiveness. Economies that embed decarbonization into their growth models are becoming magnets for investment; laggards are already seeing their cost of capital rise. n nThe Disclosure Dividend and Investor Logic n nThat same logic shows up in corporate finance. CDP’s latest Disclosure Dividend report found that companies with robust climate disclosure and transition planning enjoy a 12% lower cost of capital and are 15% more likely to attract long-term institutional investors. As the report notes, “disclosure reduces uncertainty, improves risk management, and signals resilience to markets.” n nMORE FOR YOU n nChina’s state-directed approach has effectively internalized these lessons. On a recent Morgan Stanley webcast, portfolio strategists observed that capital markets are tilting toward firms deeply integrated into Chinese clean-tech supply chains because they offer predictability. Policy certainty translates directly into investor confidence. According to BloombergNEF, global investment in the transition hit $2.1 trillion in 2024, with renewables in the first half of 2025 alone reaching a record $386 billion. Much of that money is flowing toward firms tied to Chinese supply chains. n nCarbon Markets as Geopolitical Leverage n nThat investor confidence may grow stronger as Beijing builds out the financial plumbing of the transition. In its 2025 Progress Report on the National Carbon Market, China confirmed plans to expand into cross-border carbon trading. Rich Gilmore, chief executive of Carbon Growth Partners, called this a turning point saying, “China sees the economic, political and environmental opportunity that U.S. backsliding presents, and sees carbon markets as a key way to capture that opportunity.” n nIf companies from industrialized democracies end up buying Chinese credits to meet their own compliance obligations, Beijing will not only dominate the hardware of the energy transition but also help govern its financial infrastructure. n nBeijing is also signalling readiness to take on broader global responsibilities. At the WTO, China announced it would forego “special treatment” flexibilities normally granted to developing countries in future negotiations, seen as a move away from protectionism. It also joined Brazil, Norway, the U.K., and Germany in backing the $125 billion Tropical Forests Forever Facility, designed to reward countries for conserving forests. Together, these moves position China as a responsible power at the very moment others are retreating. n nThe Politics of Retreat n nIn the UK, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, seeking to head off pressure from Reform, has pledged to repeal the landmark 2008 Climate Change Act, which established binding carbon budgets and created the independent Climate Change Committee. Ed Matthew, UK programme director at think tank E3G, described the proposal as “a monstrous act of economic and environmental vandalism… anti-science, anti-growth, anti-health and anti-nature.” n nThough not current policy, the rhetoric matters. It shows how climate action is being pulled into a culture-war contest for votes, rather than treated as an economic competitiveness issue. For investors, even opposition threats of repeal weaken confidence by raising doubts about long-term policy stability. The economics are not ambiguous: from Stern to the IMF and NGFS, the evidence shows the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action, through higher risk premia, weaker growth, and rising physical-risk losses. n nThe U.S. At Risk Of Dismantling Its Climate Foundation n nIn Washington, the threat runs even deeper. The administration has moved to undermine the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the scientific and legal foundation that allows the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Without it, rules on vehicles, power plants, and industry lose their legal anchor. Analysts warn that rescinding the finding amounts to foundational deconstruction of U.S. climate policy. n nThis undermines a booming sector: U.S. clean-energy jobs grew three times faster than the overall workforce in 2024, adding ~100,000 jobs and reaching more than 3.5 million in total, with 82% of new energy jobs in clean tech. Undoing the legal foundation could threaten one of America’s strongest job engines. n nFormer Vice President Al Gore, chair of Generation IM, put it bluntly at the launch of the report – that walking away from climate action “is irresponsible, nothing short of a tragedy.” He argues that abandoning the transition “at a time when low-emissions technologies are being commercialised everywhere else” will cost the U.S. competitiveness. For investors, the consequence is simple: higher policy volatility translates into higher risk premia. n nEurope’s Strategic Drift n nAt the European level, climate has become a coordinated wedge issue. The 2024 European Parliament elections strengthened far-right blocs and pushed the centre-right toward diluting elements of the Green Deal, reframing climate rules as sovereignty or competitiveness threats and amplifying cost-of-living and farmer-protest narratives. Analysts now track a continent-wide backlash playing out in committees and party platforms. Even the Commission has warned that climate disinformation is undermining support for action. n nThe result is slower, more volatile law-making — the kind of regulatory instability that unsettles investors. At the very moment predictable frameworks are becoming a competitive asset, Europe risks signalling drift. That contrast only sharpens China’s advantage, where Beijing offers scale and direction, Europe risks eroding credibility. n nEmerging Economies Seize Opportunity n nOther emerging economies are waking up to the opportunities. At the 2025 Africa Climate Summit, leaders recognised the opportunities in the low carbon transition and declared they were not victims but solution providers, positioning the continent as a potential renewable hub. n nIn India, the government has begun pushing to decarbonize the iron and steel sector, one of the world’s most emissions-intensive industries, driven as much by resource and pollution pressures as by diplomacy. Both regions see land, food, and energy as interlocking competitiveness challenges. n nThe moral case is getting louder, too. In October 2025 Pope Leo called for a ‘true ecological conversion’ and urged citizens to press governments for stronger action and highlighting concrete steps like a Vatican solar program and cross-faith climate work. The Pontifical Academies also warned that delay raises systemic risks (economic, social, and health related) echoing the investor logic that policy certainty lowers risk premia. n nThe High Cost Of Delay n nMeanwhile, the economic rationale for resilience only grows stronger. A joint report from Boston Consulting Group and the World Economic Forum estimated that climate-linked health risks could drive $12.5 trillion in losses by 2050, with productivity losses exceeding $1.5 trillion in sectors such as agriculture and construction. Chinese planners have already framed clean energy, pollution control, and adaptation as workforce protection measures, as insurance for growth and social stability. n nDelaying action is not neutral. The IMF shows that climate shocks and stop-go policy depress long-run growth and raise risk premia, a drag that compounds over time. Swiss Re warns that in severe late/no-action scenarios, global GDP could be up to 18% smaller by mid-century. NGFS scenarios show that “disorderly” transitions (where policies are delayed or divergent) are likely to force sharper, costlier adjustments than early, orderly pathways. n nThe price is already being paid. Globally the WEF reports trillions in damages incurred already, and a recent European Environment Agency report said average annual weather-damage losses more than doubled to €44.5 billion in 2020–2023, with cumulative EU losses in the hundreds of billions. n nScale Beats Rhetoric n nThe U.S. is attempting to undermine the legal foundation for climate action, the U.K.’s opposition is threatening to repeal its own climate bedrock, and Europe is experiencing regulatory uncertainty. Yet the economic cost of delay is already clear, from higher risk premia to trillions in climate-linked losses. n nThe real issue is not about who sets the most ambitious targets. It is about who builds the infrastructure, secures the resources, and earns investor trust. On that front, scale beats rhetoric and right now, China has both. Unless others recommit, Beijing will not only dominate the hardware of decarbonization but also set the terms of the low-carbon economy.