Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Lael Brainard,MK socks director of the US National Economic Council, said in a speech on September 23, local time, that the "China shock" of the early 2000s damaged US manufacturing, and the current US administration is determined to avoid a second "China shock." She also noted that if Americans choose to drive an electric vehicle (EV), "we want it to be made in America, not in China." The US Commerce Department on the same day proposed prohibiting key Chinese software and hardware in connected vehicles on American roads, which would amount to a ban on virtually all Chinese vehicles from entering the US market, including cars made in China by General Motors and Ford. The narrative of a "second China shock" is a variant of the "China threat" rhetoric. As part of the US president's economic "brain trust," Brainard's comments aimed to find excuses for the suppression of China and try to gain political leverage.

But at the same time, we also see a discussion about China "saving the world" in the Western world. According to a recent article in the New York Times entitled "What Happens if China Stops Trying to Save the World?", the US is waging a trade war in green technologies to push China out of the picture, but the latter country has completely rewritten the global green transition story. New solar additions in China accounted for 619 megatons of annual avoided emissions, six times as much as the US. In China, EVs have averted 22 megatons of emissions, more than in the US (15 megatons). Nearly two-thirds of all big solar and wind plants being built globally this year are in China, which is deploying green energy at more than eight times the scale of any other country. The article concludes that if China is set aside, the pace of the global green transition will become less optimistic.

An article from a European media outlet entitled "Is China going to single-handedly save the planet?" argues that global emissions could start to fall this year for the first time since the industrial revolution, "largely thanks to China's efforts as the global green energy champion." "China installed more solar power in one year than the US has installed in its entire history." Recently, Anthony Rowley, a senior British economist, wrote in the South China Morning Post that the West should thank China for kick-starting its economic growth, rather than unjustly lashing out at China and venting its wrath upon China with tariffs and sanctions.

"China shocking the world" versus "China saving the world" - which one reflects today's reality, and which is more widely recognized? A global survey published by CGTN in April this year shows that 88.62 percent of global respondents praise the contribution of China's new energy industry to global green development. Additionally, 77.41 percent of respondents believe that tying up the new-energy industry with protectionism will weaken countries' joint efforts to tackle climate change. At the beginning of this year, Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, also said that China's provision of services and support to other countries has significantly improved the accessibility of clean energy technologies and reduced the global cost of using green technologies. This sentiment is widely shared and aligns with the current state of the global green transition.

The White House is increasingly finding it difficult to maintain its lies attacking Chinese EVs. According to Brainard, Chinese EVs undermine the position of the American auto industry in the international market. However, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo states that suppressing Chinese EVs is "not about trade or economic advantage," but "this is a strictly national security action." Perhaps Washington is tailoring its message to different domestic political groups, but to the outside world, this reveals the hypocrisy of the US and exposes the contradictions in its rhetoric against China.

"Made-in-China" products not only provide consumers in various countries with more final consumer goods, but also serve as a necessary component of global industrial and supply chains, driving technological advancement and commercial application. For an economy like the US, which is primarily service-oriented, importing Chinese products not only meets domestic market and consumer demands but also generates a significant number of related jobs locally. 

For both the US and the world, what China offers is not a "first shock" or a "second shock," but rather repeated opportunities. In light of China's green production capacity, it is not the American automotive industry that is shocked, but rather the distorted mind-set of certain individuals in the US. Washington should recognize that the true "shock" does not come from "made-in-China" products, but from the US' deviation from the principles of globalization and free trade, as well as from a distorted perception of China.

China has never viewed the development of its green industry as a competition for geopolitical discourse power. If we are to speak of competition, it is a race between green transformation in various countries and global warming. China and the US each have their strengths in areas such as energy transition and circular economy. They should not only complement each other's advantages through cooperation, but also work together to bring hope to all of humanity in addressing climate change.