“所谓的‘气候变迁’，在我看来，是世界上最大的骗局之一。”
——美国总统特朗普，联合国大会演讲，2025年9月23日
西方评论者经常强调，所谓“以绿色为基础的新世界秩序”的关键推手，甚至是奠基者，正是西方国家。这种说法是建立在，二战后的国际体系长期由联合国、世界银行与国际货币基金组织等机构主导，而这些机构基本上由西方列强设计与掌控。虽然它们起初并非以“环保”为宗旨，但却成为全球环境与气候治理的主要推动载体。
一个不可否认的事实是，今日全球所面临的环境与气候危机，首要责任在于西方。西方的进步与主导地位，是奠基于19世纪中叶工业革命以来对自然资源的掠夺与滥用，进而催生了新的殖民主义时代，对亚洲、非洲与拉丁美洲的土地、资源与劳力进行长期剥削。
如今，我们必须面对这个持延续至今的资源掠夺与环境破坏的恶果，以及其对生态系统与人类社会的冲击。这些影响具体表现在栖息地的破坏、空气与水源污染；而其全球性的后果，则体现在气候变迁的各种现象上，包括海平面上升、冰川与冰帽的退缩，以及极端天灾的频发。
西方的繁荣是以高碳开发与对他国前所未有的剥削建立起来的，这意味著欧盟与美国在道德与历史上都有责任引领世界迈向绿色转型。然而，建立真正的“绿色世界秩序”，并非西方一家的任务，而是一场需要全体国家——包括新兴经济强国——共同承担的全球挑战。
西方拒斥中国绿色科技
在全球南方国家中，中国因其名义国内生产总值（GDP）居世界第二、购买力平价（PPP）居首，而成为“新绿色世界秩序”中举足轻重的一环。作为工业、生产与创新的主要力量，中国既是全球暖化的主要导因，也是太阳能板、风力涡轮机与电动车等绿色科技的全球领导者。
然而，这些正面贡献却在西方媒体与政治语境中被系统性地负面化。
以下是中国绿色科技成就未被正面肯定的地缘政治原因：
战略竞争与对抗：美中战略竞争构成了整体背景。科技领导权不仅是经济议题，更被视为国家安全的核心。
零和思维：在美国主导下的西方，往往以零和眼光看待科技主导权。若中国在绿色科技领域领先，即意味西方落后。承认中国成功等于承认未来产业的战略优势旁落。
供应链控制权：绿色科技攸关能源自主。依赖中国生产的太阳能板、电池与关键矿物，被视为安全弱点。强调这种依赖关系，对西方决策者而言是政治上的失败叙事。
国安威胁论：中国科技企业（如华为、大疆创新）常被标签为“安全风险”。这种“安全化”论述操控使整个中国科技产业被污名化，难以区分真正的安全顾虑与经济竞争。
“产能过剩”论：美欧指控中国在绿色科技领域产能过剩，认为是国家补贴导致过度生产，以廉价产品“倾销”全球市场，损害西方企业。这种论调将中国描绘为“市场破坏者”，尽管事实上，国家产业扶持政策正是由西方率先推动并至今仍广泛实施。
中国作为西方意识形态模式替代者
在“绿色新世界秩序”中，中国的成功亦挑战了西方的意识形态模型。
国家资本主义对自由市场：中国模式透过国家规划、补贴与扶持本土企业，与西方倡导的自由市场理念背道而驰。然而所谓“自由市场”更多只是口号——西方国家实际上也在不同程度上补贴与保护本国产业。若承认中国模式能孕育世界级创新科技，等同于为其正名，这对西方领袖而言在意识形态上难以接受。
“中国威胁”叙事：数十年来，西方媒体塑造了“中国是威权甚至存亡威胁”的强势叙事。要同时将一个被视为威胁的国家描绘成全球公共善（如气候行动）的贡献者，显然矛盾。这种“威胁”叙事深植于西方舆论，使“贡献者”形象被完全抹去。
控制全球媒体与叙事权
塑造全球舆论的权力，仍牢牢掌握在西方手中。
议题设定权：主要国际媒体——如新闻社的路透社、美联社、报刊《纽约时报》、《金融时报》、《卫报》以及电子媒体英国广播公司（BBC）和美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）——皆为西方所有。他们的报导反映西方的观点与地缘政治偏见。关于中国绿色科技的报导，往往聚焦于“西方失业”、“窃取知识产权”或“过剩产能”等议题，而非其对减碳与气候行动的积极贡献。
智库与学术机构：位于华盛顿、伦敦、布鲁塞尔等地的主流智库普遍由西方资金支持，服务于西方利益。他们的报告聚焦于中国崛起带来的“挑战”，这些观点再被媒体与政界放大，形成回音室效应。
结语
中国绿色科技成就被忽略，并非偶然，而是西方主导下的地缘政治产物。这也是典型的一例：客观事实（中国在绿色科技领域的庞大生产与部署）被主观叙事（战略竞争、意识形态分歧与媒体控制）所过滤。
对西方而言，承认中国在这一关键领域的成就，意味著承认对手的战略优势、承认另一种治理模式的正当性，并承认技术领导权的流失——这些皆是政治不正确的。于是，西方选择持续强调“中国绿色科技的威胁”，而非其对人类共同迈向可持续未来的贡献。
林德宜《为何西方要抵制中国绿色科技》原文：China’s Green Technology: Why The West Fights Against It
“This ‘climate change,’ it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion,”
US President Donald Trump, UN General Assembly speech, September 23, 2025
Western commentators often point to what they claim to be the key, if not foundational, role that Western nations have played in setting up a new green-based world order. This is because the post-WWII international system has been dominated by institutions like the UN, World Bank, and IMF, which were largely designed by Western powers. Although not initially "green," these institutions have been the main vehicles through which global environmental and climate governance has developed.
It is indisputable that the West is primarily responsible for the environmental and climate change challenges found in the world. The progress and dominance of the West was built on systems of exploitation of natural resources following tlthe Industrial Revolution in the mid nineteenth century. This in turn ushered in the new era of colonialism which exploited the land, natural resources and labour of the South in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Today we have to deal with the aftermath of this continuing epoch of resource exploitation and environmental degradation; and its impact on ecosystems and human society. These repercussions manifest as habitat destruction and air and water pollution, while their global reach can be seen in climate change effects including sea level rise, the retreat of glaciers and ice caps, and increased natural disasters.
The West's prosperity built on carbon-intensive development and the unprecedented enhanced exploitation of other countries means that the European Union countries and the US have a moral and historical obligation to lead the transition to a green order.
But we should not forget that the transition to a truly "green world order" has to be a global collective challenge that requires the full commitment of all nations including emerging economic powers.
West Rebuffs China’s Green Technology
Among countries in the global South that are key to the new green world order, China has received special attention due to its position as the second largest economy by nominal GDP and largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). This makes it a major player in industry, trade and innovation. The fact that China is a major contributor to global warming as well as the world leader in manufacturing and deploying green technology like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles is undeniable.
However, its positive contributions continue to be framed negatively by Western media and political discourse.
These are the geopolitical reasons why China's green technology contribution is not highlighted and appreciated :
● Strategic Competition and Rivalry: The overarching context is the US-China strategic competition. In this framework, technology leadership is not just an economic issue but perceived as a core national security interest.
● Zero-Sum Game Perception: The West, led by the US, often views technological dominance as a zero-sum game. If China leads in green tech, it means the West is falling behind. Acknowledging China's success by the West is seen as conceding a critical strategic advantage in the industry of the future.
● Control over Supply Chains: Green technology is essential for energy independence.
Relying on China for solar panels, batteries, and critical minerals is seen as a vulnerability. Highlighting China's dominance of this dependency is seen as a politically defeatist narrative for Western policymakers.
● National Security Threat: Chinese technology, particularly from companies like Huawei and DJI, is often labeled a security risk. This attempt to "securitization" of technology taints the entire sector, making it difficult to separate legitimate security concerns from competitive economic advantages.
● "Overcapacity" Narrative: The US and EU have accused China of creating "overcapacity" in green tech, arguing that massive state subsidies lead to overproduction. They claim this floods global markets with cheap products, unfairly undermining and bankrupting Western companies. This framing paints China not as a contributor but as a market disruptor even though state policies of support to industries have been pioneered by the West and continue to be ongoing.
China as Alternative to Western Ideological Model
What is also evident in the new green world order is that China's success challenges the Western ideological model.
● State Capitalism vs. Free Markets: China's model, which involves significant state planning, subsidies, and support for national champions, is viewed as antithetical to the Western ideal of free-market competition, though the latter is only practiced in rhetoric and all countries in the West provide assistance to their own homegrown industries and economic sectors in one way or another. Acknowledging that the China model can produce world-leading, innovative technology would legitimize it, which is ideologically unpalatable to Western leaders.
● The "China Threat" Narrative: For decades, a powerful narrative has portrayed China as an authoritarian, and now existential, threat. It is cognitively dissonant to simultaneously portray a country as a threat and a positive contributor to a global public good like climate change. The "threat" narrative is so deeply entrenched in the west that it erases the "contributor" narrative.
Control of Global Media and Narrative Platforms
The institutions that shape global public opinion are largely Western-dominated.
● Agenda-Setting by Western Media: Major global news agencies (Reuters, AP), newspapers (NYT, FT, The Guardian), and broadcasters (BBC, CNN) are based in the West. Their reporting reflects Western perspectives, priorities, and geopolitical bias. Stories about China's green tech are often framed through the lens of job losses in the West, alleged intellectual property theft, or overcapacity, rather than its net positive impact on climate change cvand global decarbonization.
● Think Tanks and Academia: Influential think tanks in Washington D.C., London, Brussels, and elsewhere are funded by and focused on Western interests. Their reports and policy briefs emphasize the challenges posed by China's rise, which filters into media and political discourse.
Conclusion
The under-highlighting of China's green technology contribution is not an oversight. It is an outcome of the current geopolitical landscape as defined by the West. It is a classic case where objective facts (China's massive production and deployment of green tech) are filtered through a powerful subjective lens of strategic competition, ideological difference, and narrative control.
For the West, acknowledging China's achievements in this critical field would mean conceding to a rival's superior strategy, legitimizing a different governance model, and admitting a loss of technological leadership. All of these are politically unacceptable. Hence, the narrative focuses on the threat posed by China's green tech dominance rather than its contribution to the global struggle to ensure a more sustainable world through a new green world order.
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
