In the run up to COP 30, China was expected to emerge as a climate leader at the summit in absence of the US. Most headlines during the COP30 also mentioned China as filling in the void. However, China mainly utilised this summit to highlight its role as the dominant supplier of green energy technologies, and stuck to its label of a developing country. It joined developing countries in reinforcing the call for developed economies to meet the financial commitments made at COP29, alongside furthering support for following the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
On the front of climate leadership, the Chinese representatives cautiously avoided any statements that imply a commitment to providing climate finance. Rather, its role in supplying low-carbon technologies at highly competitive prices has now become an important aspect of China’s climate diplomacy. Not only supplying, but its role in RE project implementation is playing a central role in climate diplomacy. China positioned itself as an enabler of energy transition, especially for developing countries.
China is creating its own space, not replacing the US
While China garnered a lot of attention, its climate leadership lacked in several ways. With the emissions reduction targets and demanding climate finance, China continues to be demanding a treatment of a developing economy despite being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. The country’s latest NDC target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10% by the year 2035 is underwhelming, and the deliberate omission of a base year in the commitment signifies a lack of clarity in the country’s commitments.
In terms of leading negotiations, China utilised the opportunity to oppose trade barriers on its clean tech exports by the US and EU, especially the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and green certification requirements. While China is already working on expanding its own emissions trading market, it called such measures as ‘the new injustice’. The EU and China were the two large powers actively involved, that maintained the hopeful tone of the overall summit. Although both of them held opposing stances.
This was also the first time that critical minerals were to be included in the final text of the agreement as ‘transition minerals’. The goal was to ensure an equitable extraction process for resource-rich countries, which was opposed by China due to its economic interests. There was no major role played by the Chinese in larger climate mitigation measures, except for the ones that involved faster green energy deployment. Views on China’s participation in key negotiations vary among attendees and negotiators, according to different statements.
The Chinese pavilion at COP30
The centrally positioned Chinese pavilion, which reportedly garnered massive attention from the global media, showcased its electric vehicles and other clean energy applications, highlighting China’s rapid advancements and adoption of renewable energy. The pavilion featured several events and talks by the cleantech manufacturers, such as BYD and CATL. These events prove crucial to portraying China as a leading supplier of low carbon technologies to the world. However, they also appear to be a strategy to enter new markets and expand the share of Chinese equipment in technologies that will be significant for countries going ahead.
The emphasis of events on mutual benefit and shared prosperity resonated broadly across the developing nations. Regardless of the narrative, China’s role in increasing the accessibility and deployment of clean technologies across the world is evident and widely recognised but that alone is insufficient for it to be declared as a ‘climate leader’.
This year’s COP30 underscored that countries can draft their own script of climate leadership. China did not assume any financial or normative responsibilities, rather it articulated a pragmatic approach and a more limited yet clearly defined role in global climate governance. It replaced pledges and commitments to production capacity, deployment capabilities and implementation. While this approach reflects a fragmented climate regime, the sole focus on energy transition by China limits the overall scope of the summit.
The summit therefore, revealed a paradox of significant influence over processes without any formal obligation. Although, developing countries mostly cheered China up in this summit, the dominance of China could make them highly dependent on the country for their energy transition journeys. This approach also raises questions on the sustainability of multilateral climate action, wherein the two influential powers, the EU and China, move with contradictory interests.