China And The EU Move Forward On Green Energy Without The U.S.
At the end of July, a highly anticipated summit between China and the European Union took place in Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Antonio Costa tackled an array of issues in a tense summit. The results of the summit were largely disappointing. For Beijing, its great hope of finding an alternative set of developed economies to act as new markets and bypass U.S. tariffs while splitting the Western alliance, remained out of reach due to China's refusal to stop supporting Russia. Brussels was similarly unwilling to accommodate China on critical minerals initiatives and trade imbalance remediation. The summit was largely inconclusive.
Amidst this strategic stalemate, there was one area of notable cooperation: green energy. The two sides issued a joint statement agreeing to accelerate the development and deployment of green energy technologies and reaffirmed their support for the Paris Climate Agreement, which the Trump administration has withdrawn from. For both Brussels and Beijing, the cooperation represents a shared opportunity to make an imprint on the international system while the current U.S. policies abdicate its global responsibilities, critics say.
Europe gains leverage over the U.S. by signaling it has strategic autonomy and maintains a source of cheap imports vital for Europe's state-directed green energy transition. China maintains a lifeline to many advanced economies and export markets for its affordable, mass-produced green tech, such as solar panels and electric vehicles.
While both sides do make gains, and this by no means represents Brussels capitulating to Beijing, China has clearly gotten the better deal. Through this deal and others like it, as the U.S. lurches towards 'climate isolationism,' distrustful of prevailing science, China is poised to increase its influence in key areas, including green energy, through its multilateral economic and renewable energy engagement. China: a Renewables Superpower?
China is a self proclaimed renewables superpower and the global leader in renewable energy production, accounting for 40% of the world's renewable energy capacity and investing $818 billion in green energy in 2024. Between January and May of 2025, China installed enough wind and solar power to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey. In only the first few months of 2025, China has produced as much solar capacity as in all of 2020, demonstrating the speed of Beijing's green energy development. Its record-breaking solar and wind installations are only the tip of the iceberg.
China is particularly committed to nuclear energy. Beijing has set out to become the largest nuclear energy-producing country by 2030, a goal it is on track to meet. Currently, it has 58 operable nuclear reactors, fewer than the U.S.'s 94 reactors. However, it took the U.S. forty years to create that nuclear capacity, which China has added in only 10 years. In the last 30 years, the U.S. has successfully commissioned a single nuclear power plant, which was years behind schedule and billions over budget. China's nuclear reactors are newer and more efficient than most American ones, which were mostly constructed in the 1960s and 1970s.
Beijing is also a pioneer in the development of Small Modular Reactors, which are a fraction of the size of traditional reactors and can be assembled in a factory before being shipped elsewhere to begin generation. China's 'Linglong One' was the world's first operable commercial SMR, with the second being in Russia. The U.S.'s first commercial SMR is not expected to come online until 2027.
Images of modern Chinese cities interspersed with green energy projects are a vital component of China's soft power. They often feature in Beijing's messaging to the global south. getty Why the U.S. Loses from Being Disengaged in Climate Policy
This array of investments and accomplishments is more than just sound economic policy stemming from the self-evident rationale that cheaper energy means a stronger economy. Energy policy and high-tech energy component exports provide China with an opportunity to move up the value-added chain for exports and reshape the evolving international energy ecosystem.
China is exploiting an opening that has been created as the U.S. has shown disinterest in engaging its European allies in renewable energy. Approximately $8 billion worth of climate tech projects in the U.S. have been downsized or cancelled in 2025 as China and Europe continue to expand cooperation in the field.
While China has made considerable strides in green energy, it is essential to remember that China is not a green utopia. China is the world's largest producer of green energy, but it also emits more greenhouse gas than any other country in the world. China playing ball with the Europeans certainly reflects its commitment to and heavy investment in clean energy and a green transition. It also reflects Beijing's inability to unilaterally act and reshape international energy demands – meaning the U.S. both has the time and potential to prevent Chinese dominance in the energy sector.
Renewable energy is also a key aspect of China's soft power abroad. China has invested in renewable energy developments in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, gaining control of key supply chains in developing countries as their demand for electricity grows. Additionally, China aims to sell 30 nuclear reactors to countries through its Belt and Road Initiative by 2030, once again expanding its global footprint through energy development. Its footprint was even growing in the EU before the summit, as Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers captured market shares in several European economies.
China's ever-growing influence in the climate sector is poised to leave the U.S. in the dust so long as Washington's energy policy draws more on nostalgia than foresight. Regardless of the priorities of the Trump administration in the energy sector, advancement in green technology is critical to remain competitive with China. Beijing's supply of renewable technology has boosted its position in the global economy and on the diplomatic stage. Though the current American strategy emphasizes the utilization of its oil and gas resources, an 'all of the above' strategy must also include investment into solar, wind, and especially nuclear tech to ensure the country can compete with the Chinese juggernaut in the energy transition megatrend.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
How DeepSeek and Open-Source Models Are Shaking Up AI
Tech companies and academics have long wrestled with the risks and rewards of building open-source software. But the frenzy around generative artificial intelligence has lent new significance to the debate. DeepSeek and other Chinese companies have pushed out a wave of low-cost, open source models that rival software from the top American AI developers. In response, OpenAI, a leading US AI company, has released a new open model, its first in six years. The Trump administration has called for more US tech companies to do the same.
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Smart Leaders Use Constraints to Drive Strategic Innovation
Recently, reports began circulating that Nvidia was developing a detuned version of its next-generation Blackwell chip for China. The new chip would be slower on paper, lower priced, and engineered to comply with U.S. export limits. This wasn't a retreat—it was a redesign. Rather than waiting for the wall to move, the company chose to build right up to the wall. Nvidia's decision captures something essential about leadership under pressure. When reality draws a hard line, the instinct is to negotiate for more room. Another quarter. Another budget cycle. Another exemption. The alternative is to treat the line itself as part of the brief. Nvidia's response is less about salvaging a market than about reframing the problem: take the rule, freeze it, and optimize around it faster than anyone else can respond. The limit becomes an input. The boundary becomes an edge to cut against. Most organizations don't work this way. Most teams treat constraints as temporary inconveniences. They lobby around them, litigate them, or wait them out. Yet the firms that keep outmaneuvering their peers treat constraint as a forcing function for clarity, speed, and differentiation. Leadership is difficult even in the best of times. And these aren't the best of times. Markets are unsettled, geopolitics shows up inside product roadmaps, and investors ask for discipline and outsized growth at the same time. Teams are stretched. Wanting more room is understandable. The task is to find clarity inside the room that actually exists. The Power of Constraints Psychologists and designers have long understood the power of limits. If you were asked to name as many white objects as you could, many of us would stop after five or six: clouds, snow, paper, teeth... But narrow the frame to white objects in the refrigerator and people's lists grow quickly: milk, eggs, yogurt, cauliflower, sour cream, leftover rice... The boundary doesn't reduce imagination; it directs attention and sharpens perception. Amazon's two‑pizza team rule was introduced as that kind of structural discipline. Teams were capped at the size that could be fed with two pizzas, not as a gimmick but as a principle. It was a deliberate constraint on group size that encouraged accountability, clear ownership, and speed. With a small enough team, there's little room for ambiguity. Decisions are made closer to the work. Apple, often discussed as a company of boundless ambition, operates with an unusual level of internal constraint. Consider the number of SKUs and the narrowness of the design language. With artificial intelligence, privacy is prioritized, on-device processing is preferred, and partnerships are introduced cautiously and selectively. A peculiar paradox now defines strategy work. Many leaders face too much of everything: too many tools, data, priorities, and meetings to align too many stakeholders. In that context, additional resources often slow the system down. The surface area of indecision expands, and momentum leaks away. Seen through that lens, Nvidia's move is instructive. Instead of lamenting what can't be built or sold, the question shifts to what must be built to win inside the boundary. Constraint ceases to be the bottleneck. It becomes the clarifier. Reacting to Constraints Most businesses face three kinds of constraints. There are imposed constraints: regulators, geopolitics, macro shocks, activist boards. Nvidia's China strategy sits here. The boundary is hard, public, and rarely negotiable on the timelines that matter to product and go‑to‑market teams. There are structural constraints: legacy tech stacks, capital availability, brittle supply chains, outdated incentive systems, operating‑model debt, and talent gaps. These constraints are rarely acknowledged because they feel like the water the organization swims in every day. But there are chosen constraints, too: limits leaders set deliberately to produce sharper strategy and faster execution. Amazon's team size rule and Apple's SKU discipline fall into this category. The distinction matters. An imposed constraint demands adaptation. A structural constraint demands redesign. A chosen constraint demands leadership. When it's no longer plausible that more is the answer, it becomes easier to see that less often can be. Operating Inside a Boundary Many companies have intricate criteria for funding projects and almost none for killing them. Under a constraint, the kill criteria are built into the brief from the outset. The team knows what would cause them to stop. That clarity accelerates learning. Of course, constraints amplify accountability only if it's obvious who holds the pen. If a project has five sponsors and ten reviewers, the constraint turns into politics. If it has one owner, it turns into progress. And make no mistake: the narrative matters. There's a psychological cost when constraint is framed as austerity. People feel punished and hide their ambitions. Framed as concentration, the same constraint invites professionalism rather than martyrdom. Trust builds when leaders say no to expansion, but then protect the teams working inside the smaller mandate. Constraints work best when people understand the game they're playing. Telling an organization to do more with less generates anxiety. Explaining where the line sits, why it exists, and how the team intends to win inside it generates focus. Budget becomes a design instrument when it's fixed early and defended. Teams turn time into a forcing function when they announce a release date before work begins. When Netflix decided to start developing its own content, it didn't launch into it with a sprawling studio and Game of Thrones budgets. It began with House of Cards, a show free of expensive CGI dragons. Still, the company had a focused, data‑informed thesis of what would appeal to its audience. Working inside limitations led to sharper choices and a stronger debut. Getting Started with Constraints Leadership under constraint tends to follow a recognizable sequence. The boundary conditions are frozen. The rule, the regulator, the budget, or the headcount is treated as an input rather than a grievance. The design brief then makes explicit what must be true to win inside that line, what has to ship, and what will be deliberately cut. Ownership is concentrated in a small, fast team rather than diluted across a large coalition. Decisions are time‑boxed so that momentum is protected. The constraint is narrated so the organization understands why the wall exists, what it's teaching, and how the team intends to win inside it. One initiative that truly matters can be selected and treated with the same clarity Nvidia is applying to its China strategy. The central constraint can be written in a single sentence—regulation, budget, timeline, talent, compute, attention—and held fixed. That constraint can then be translated into a specification: what has to be true to succeed inside it, and what will be cut. A small team can be appointed, given no more than sixty days, and asked to deliver something concrete rather than something perfect. To be sure, not every constraint produces clarity. Some are arbitrary, performative, or so severe that they starve the work rather than focus it. The task is to decide which boundaries are worth accepting, which must be redesigned, and which should be chosen on purpose—and to move faster once that difference is clear. The Deeper Challenge for Leaders In a zero-interest-rate environment, conversations tended to revolve around removing limits: more funding, more hiring, more time. All of that signaled ambition, yet it often spread attention thinner. But there's another way to view the game. A small, focused mission signals that the work matters and that the organization trusts the team to move with speed and clarity. Constraint, in this reading, isn't a penalty. It's a commitment to coherence. When leaders embrace constraint, they force prioritization. They grant permission to be decisive. They encourage a kind of moral clarity: this is the thing being built, for these people, at this moment. Everything else is noise. That clarity shows up in shorter feedback loops, in smaller teams making bigger calls, and in an organization that tells a consistent story about what matters. So the brief can be frozen. The timebox can be set. The constraint can be named. The final step is to help the team see that the work isn't about operating with less, but about discovering what's essential and executing against it with speed and care. The future won't be won by the company with the most room to run. It will be won by the companies that know how to find the wall and run up against it. To use it not as a limit, but as
Bloomberg
20 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
China's ‘National Team' Perfects the Art of Dip Buying
The stock market is not the economy. This year, other factors, such as retail participation in the US and corporate governance reform in South Korea, are pushing markets to tease record highs despite aweak economic reality. In China, a key catalyst is the involvement of the so-called ' national team,' a group of institutional investors that buys index funds to stem market routs. The main players include Central Huijin Investment Ltd., a domestic unit of the sovereign fund China Investment Corp., China Securities Finance Corp. and the Social Security Fund.
