The Green Veil: How Climate Policies Risk Wealth, Rights, and Sovereignty

By Yu Gui, Janet Huang

In the global effort to tackle climate change, many climate activists loudly call for “saving the planet.” However, behind these slogans often lie risks to economic security, national sovereignty, and even basic survival rights. The following provides a concise analysis of these issues from three interrelated perspectives and offers strategies to help readers better understand them.

Wealth Transfer Under the Green Banner 

The Paris Agreement (2015) is hailed as a milestone in global climate governance, but its framework creates a one-way flow of capital from developed countries to major carbon emitters like China. Wealthy nations such as the United States pledged around $100 billion annually in climate financing to developing countries. Yet China, now the world’s largest carbon emitter, is still classified as a “developing country” and will not face binding emission limits until after 2030.

According to the Heritage Foundation, this asymmetry could cost the U.S. up to $2.5 trillion in GDP over the next 20 years, while the global emission reduction benefits remain relatively limited.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows for international carbon offset trading, which is expected to create a $100 billion market by 2030. China plays a dual role in this market as both a credit producer and a major buyer. Companies supported by Beijing generate carbon credits through reforestation projects in regions like Inner Mongolia and sell them to Western firms, effectively channeling funds into China’s fiscal coffers. This system also benefits China’s photovoltaic and electric vehicle exporters, which account for 80 percent of the global green technology supply chain.

For the best of our weekly content！

You are now signed up for our newsletter

Check your email to complete sign up

Under the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) framework, Western pension funds and asset management institutions have channeled trillions of dollars into Chinese state-owned enterprises. Some of these funds even indirectly support companies linked to forced labor camps associated with the persecution of Falun Gong and Uyghurs, or highly polluting coal projects. Meanwhile, domestic fossil fuel industries in the West are being constrained, causing economic hardship for workers and worsening energy poverty — in some parts of Europe, household electricity prices have surged nearly 50 percent.

These capital flows not only weaken the competitiveness of Western industries but also provide a “green” cover for China’s surveillance technologies and military-industrial development.

‘Community of shared future for mankind’ 

The shadow of geoengineering

Geoengineering and chemtrails were once dismissed as nonexistent “conspiracy theories.” However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began publicly disclosing information on this topic in July, bringing it into academic and policy discussions.

These audacious SRM projects recall Mao Zedong’s communist-era slogan: “The bolder the man, the greater the harvest,” which fueled China’s Great Leap Forward. From 1959 to 1961, approximately 45 million people died of famine (according to internal CCP statistics). Mao’s belief in “fighting the heavens, the earth, and mankind” drove efforts to transform nature, resulting in disastrous projects like the Sanmenxia Dam, which caused upstream sedimentation and flooding, submerged 660 square kilometers of fertile land, forced massive population relocations, and created lasting environmental and social problems.

Reasonable skepticism toward climate data and policies

A call to look beyond the green veil

The intertwining of economic exploitation, ideological convergence, experimental technologies, data opacity, and ethical risks outlines the potential harm behind the guise of climate salvation.

History shows that grandiose slogans of leftist catastrophists often diverge from reality. For example, Marx claimed his communist theory served “the vast majority,” yet under Marx’s guidance, the Paris Commune destroyed much of France’s cultural heritage. According to The Black Book of Communism, 20th-century communism caused at least 94 million unnatural deaths worldwide, not counting China’s family planning policies, which resulted in over 400 million fetal and infant deaths.

Pew surveys indicate that 56% of U.S. Republican voters view climate policies as economically destructive, and some Democratic voters also see them as exacerbating social inequality.

To truly mitigate the risks of climate actions and ensure policies serve all of humanity, the following steps are necessary:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Stop transferring wealth to authoritarian regimes, disclose ESG investment criteria, and ensure climate policies do not undermine basic living rights.
2. Respect for Human Rights and Nature: Learn from history and prohibit geoengineering experiments without public consultation and evaluation.
3. Technological Prudence: Prioritize energy technologies with higher efficiency and lower pollution while maintaining economic stability.
4. Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Prevent a single group or institution from dominating the global climate agenda.
5. Protect Academic Freedom: Provide fair funding and publication opportunities for researchers with differing perspectives.