Tian Anqi and Jiao Pei: Beyond the Green Illusion of Capitalism
Promoting a comprehensive green transition is a key measure for the global response to climate change, the promotion of sustainable development, and the improvement of people’s quality of life. Since entering the 21st century, and particularly following the 2008 international financial crisis, the frequent emergence of global ecological and environmental problems has made "green economy" and "green growth" focal points of discussion. Western societies in the stage of "late capitalism" have committed themselves to achieving a green shift through "green capitalism"—a fusion of "green elements" with capitalist economic development. This aims to construct a "green future" where economic growth and environmental protection represent a win-win scenario, thereby resolving the dual crises of the economy and ecology. Whether this "green economy," emerging from the logic of capital, can ultimately succeed has become an issue of intense concern and debate.
I. The Green Illusion Constructed by the "Green Shift"
Since the 1960s and 70s, the ecological problems brought about by traditional Western industrialization and urbanization have continuously emerged and intensified, plunging Western society into widespread anxiety. People began to advocate for a "green shift" without transforming the capitalist system itself—that is, relying entirely on operational modes centered on "markets" and "technology" to regulate ecological issues. This attempts to alleviate the contradiction between humanity and nature and mitigate ecological anxiety, thus forming the governance strategy of green capitalism.
(1) The background of the "green shift"
In comparison to early capitalism, the various contradictions and economic crises of late capitalism are deeply intertwined, further exacerbating the tension between humanity and nature. "The neoliberal economic restructuring originating from the new regime of monopoly-finance capital has not only undermined the economic welfare of the majority but, in some regions, has even deprived humans of the most basic ecological conditions required for survival, such as clean air, potable water, and sufficient food." In the sphere of production, the ecological crisis caused by capital's over-exploitation of natural resources presents unprecedented challenges to human society; in the sphere of consumption, the material pursuits driven by consumerism have resulted in serious resource waste, intensifying environmental pollution and energy consumption.
The rise of the Western environmental movement was a response to public nuisance incidents and ecological crises. By triggering public concern and participation, it promoted the awakening and popularization of environmental protection consciousness. In 1962, the American marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in Boston, exposing the human abuse of pesticides and other chemicals; it is regarded as the founding work of the environmental movement. In 1972, the report The Limits to Growth released by the Club of Rome predicted that if humanity focused only on economic growth, it would inevitably encounter economic collapse. These concerns from intellectuals pushed the global scope toward valuing environmental issues and promoted subsequent research and action. The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, triggering profound reflections on environmental issues. The Western environmental movement propelled the awakening of environmental consciousness in Western society and the arrival of the "green shift."
Since the 1990s, Western societies have paid increasing attention to ecological issues, and the green movement has continuously shifted toward green politics. In 2007, the United Kingdom successively released the Energy White Paper and the Climate Change Bill (Draft), making detailed requirements for developing a low-carbon economy and controlling greenhouse gas emissions, clearly proposing to reduce emissions by 26%–32% by 2020 and by 60% by 2050. In 2009, the Obama administration of the U.S. Democratic Party signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, identifying new energy as a primary developmental field. The subsequent Republican Trump administration denied global warming and supported traditional fossil fuels, while the current Democratic Biden administration has introduced what is called the most aggressive new energy policy in history. American green politics has become a focal point within the whirlpool of bipartisan political struggle. A 2011 European Union (EU) document noted that "the European economy should complete a radical shift within the span of a generation." Additionally, other Western countries have successively increased investment in the development of renewable energy to promote low-carbon green economic growth. All of these factors contributed to the so-called "green shift."
(2) The rise of "Green Market Omnipotence"
Facing the current dual crisis of economy and ecology, how can the ecological environment be improved while maintaining economic growth? Western governments generally choose to achieve a "green shift" through market mechanisms.
Adherents of green capitalism hold the belief that "rational pricing" of natural resources can allow them to exert their maximum utility. In their view, environmental degradation is largely the result of the market failing to reflect the environmental costs of production and consumption and the value of natural capital. Proceeding from this, assigning private property and economic value to the environment is seen as the best way to manage natural resources. "Green Market Omnipotence" (绿色市场万能论) [1] was thus formed. This theory firmly believes that a rational pricing mechanism for natural resources can incentivize enterprises to seek more environmentally friendly and efficient ways of resource utilization. High-value natural resources will become a new driving force for technological innovation and green industrial development. The reasons are as follows: First, in a green market, the environmental performance of an enterprise becomes a critical factor in competition. By improving environmental performance, companies can gain a competitive advantage in the market, and consumers also tend to choose products and services with higher environmental standards. This pressure of market competition urges enterprises to continuously improve environmental performance and provide more eco-friendly and sustainable solutions. Second, they advocate for combining commercial principles in the market economy with ecological protection, attempting to create a new model for capitalist sustainable development. The government's primary task is to ensure market standardization; by implementing green taxes, the government can incorporate the environmental costs of enterprises into the tax system, making it part of the enterprise's total cost, thereby constraining enterprises to protect the environment and rationally develop and utilize natural resources. "Sustainability itself" here evolves into a commodity, traded and managed under market principles and mechanisms. In short, in the eyes of supporters of green capitalism, through rational pricing of natural resources, the scarcity of natural resources and environmental costs can be reflected, and the market will ensure these resources are used in the most efficient manner, thereby reducing environmental damage. They have a superstitious faith in relying on capitalist market principles to solve ecological problems, emphasizing that capitalist market mechanisms serve the ecosystem, and even attributing the root cause of environmental problems entirely to "market failure" in the effective allocation of resources. "Green Market Omnipotence," as the primary perspective or theory of green capitalism, is highly favored in Western society.
(3) The popularity of "Green Technology Omnipotence"
The primary mode of operation for alleviating the ecological crisis in late capitalist society also lies in the excessive veneration of green technology. "Over the past decade, many advocates of green capitalism have attempted to peddle green technology as a panacea, or to 'decouple' environmental impacts from economic activity, so as to mask the conflict between market logic and ecological limits."
First, it is argued that within the framework of capitalism, the efficiency of environmental protection can be improved through technological improvements and innovative measures. The rise of green technology attempts to make people believe they can continuously derive power from renewable energy; by reducing production energy consumption, decreasing pollution, and choosing alternative technologies to improve resource utilization, all manner of goods and vehicles will become more energy-efficient. This allows people to consume indefinitely without worrying about climate impacts, presenting a beautiful green vision to the world. In the view of green capitalist technological solutions, the promotion and development of renewable energy and other technologies within the capitalist market framework are effective means to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These innovations will replace existing polluting technologies, continuously reduce net carbon emissions, and ultimately play a role in environmental protection. The New York Times best-selling columnist Thomas Friedman claimed that if people shift to solar and other renewable energies, turning clean energy into a "new engine of growth" and producing things that billions of Chinese, Indians, and people elsewhere in the world want, then the entire planet can enjoy the "American way of life." Such optimistic assumptions based on an excessive veneration of green technology, on one hand, overestimate the potential of renewable energy to alleviate the ecological crisis and, on the other hand, underestimate growing future demand, inevitably failing to withstand scientific scrutiny.
Second, specific technological solutions are proposed for the ecological crisis. "Geoengineering" is considered a general term for human intervention in the Earth's environment and climate change through large-scale artificial technologies and methods; it can generally be divided into two categories. The first is carbon removal, aimed at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gas content and lower the impact of climate change. The second is solar radiation management, aimed at regulating the climate by changing the way the Earth receives or reflects solar radiation—such as spraying aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation or placing mirrors in space to change the Earth’s radiation balance—with the goal of lowering the Earth’s surface temperature. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, once noted: "Geoengineering will work to fulfill the promise of solving the problem of global warming, and it will only cost us billions of dollars a year." The famous Dutch Nobel laureate in chemistry, Paul Crutzen, similarly believed that if we hope to quickly moderate warming and mitigate other climate impacts, then geoengineering... might be the only available option.
To this point, we can see that late capitalist Western society advocates for green capitalist solutions that rely on market mechanisms and technological innovation as their axis to improve the environment without transforming the capitalist system. In a sense, this alleviates, covers up, and displaces the deep-seated contradictions between the capitalist mode of production and the ecological environment. It is highly attractive in a capitalist society whose flaws are increasingly evident, but it is nothing more than the construction of a "green illusion."
II. The Harm of the "Green Illusion"
As capitalist contradictions further escalate, green capitalism has advanced the inherent drive of capital to privatize everything and incorporate it into the sphere of circulation, further intensifying existing inequalities. On this basis, "green fascism" and "ecological imperialism"—characterized by capitalist hegemony—have formed. These not only deepen Western green anxiety but also exacerbate tensions in global ecological protection.
(1) The predicament of the Western green shift
In reality, the efforts of the bourgeoisie to save capitalism by dealing with the climate crisis are concentrated in the erroneous solutions of green capitalism. Examples include the technical goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as market mechanisms such as carbon trading schemes and "payments for ecosystem services" (PES). They also propose some dubious technological solutions, including carbon removal, carbon sequestration, and other geoengineering schemes.
On one hand, the practice of incorporating nature into the market system causes nature to be reduced to a mere appendage of humanity. Far from improving the ecological crisis, this intensifies the contradiction of "subject-object dichotomy." In the view of John Bellamy Foster, a representative figure of Ecological Marxism, the market mechanism of clearly pricing natural resources causes a phenomenon where ecological resources are completely stripped down to capital. This reductionist approach of constructing everything through the "market-commodity" relationship is "absurd" and harmful. British scholar Ivan R. Scales argues that in the rush to commodify nature, environmental protection serves the interests of capital rather than the market serving the interests of biodiversity conservation. Marx also once pointed out that under the capitalist system, "the theoretical discovery of its [nature's] autonomous laws appears merely as a ruse so as to subjugate it [nature] under human needs, whether as an object of consumption or as a means of production." That is to say, the relationship between humanity and nature is alienated under capitalist society into a unilateral, egoistic relationship of possession, where nature is reduced to a human appendage. This "subject-object opposition" leads to sharp contradictions between humanity and nature. Beyond this, it must be noted that as market mechanisms begin to run unchecked in the ecological field, the continuous pursuit of profit leads to varying degrees of "greenwashing." Many capitalist enterprises intentionally create an illusion of sustainable development to evade and reduce their own costs of environmental protection. In this sense, the crux of green capitalism lies in its attempt to forcibly cram the complexity of the climate and ecological crises into the narrow framework of the market, without considering whether the market can truly solve these problems.
On the other hand, attempting to repair ecological problems through technological refinement lacks practical feasibility. The late-capitalist logic of using technological innovation to fix the environment essentially upholds an attitude of "ecological optimism," though this optimism remains trapped within the constraints of the logic of capital. British scholar Richard Smith has pointed out that an irreconcilable contradiction exists between the essential logic of capital development and the endeavor to save the planet; theorists of "green capitalism" generally overestimate the potential of "green" production. The "technological omnipotence" thesis faces the "Jevons Paradox"—the phenomenon where increasing energy efficiency may lead to greater total energy consumption. This occurs because, under capitalist conditions, improved efficiency in the use of a particular energy source increases the demand for that source. In other words, the notion of solving environmental problems purely through technological means is limited. Although strategies such as the "Green New Deal" and "green growth" conform to the demands of social progress and the interests of the masses to some extent, the complexity of domestic politics in Western countries makes such planning difficult to sustain. For example, 80% of surveyed US Republicans expressed strong opposition to the Green New Deal, while only 46% of Democrats supported it. The implementation of Europe’s green transition has also been hampered by adverse factors such as geopolitics and internal divisions. EU member states remain divided on how to conduct the energy transition; France and Germany hold fast to opposing views on whether to develop nuclear energy, making it "difficult to achieve the short-term goal of quickly increasing renewable energy capacity to bridge the current supply gap." Seen from this perspective, while the efforts of late-capitalist societies to resolve the ecological crisis have partially promoted domestic green transitions, the influence of the capitalist system itself and the complexity of domestic politics mean that this superficial, general "greening" can only degenerate into a "green utopian" illusion.
As the Japanese eco-Marxist scholar Kohei Saito [2] summarized: whether it is the "Green New Deal" attempting to achieve "green economic growth" or dreamlike technologies like geoengineering, they are all actually desperate attempts to preserve capitalism—the very root of the crisis. This is where the ultimate contradiction lies. British ecological Marxist theorist David Pepper has pointed out that "capitalism's ecological contradictions make sustainable development or 'green' capitalism an impossible dream, and thus a self-deceptive fraud." In short, without eliminating the "ecological negation" logic inherent in capital, no matter how much green capitalism develops, ecological imperialism and ecological fascism will only intensify, further exacerbating the ecological crisis and ultimately causing the ecological hopes of late capitalism to vanish completely.
(2) The Export of Pollution and Waste and the Evasion of Responsibility for Environmental Governance
The "selective greening" strategy of green capitalism practiced by advanced Western capitalist countries has clearly yielded little result. To thoroughly eliminate the pollution problems resulting from their own industrial development, they have begun to adopt methods of "cost externalization" to shift domestic risks. They continuously transfer and export environmental pollutants to the Third World, which constitutes typical "ecological colonialism" and "ecological imperialism."
On the one hand, the essence of advanced capitalist countries transferring high-pollution industries to other nations is to reduce the costs of their own industrial development by externalizing environmental costs. Along with the continuous development of capitalist productive forces and the improvement of industrialization, advanced capitalist countries accumulated vast amounts of industrial trash and waste, causing environmental degradation. To deal with environmental pollution, they have adopted measures such as multinational corporate cooperation to transfer high-pollution industries to developing countries, even using the guise of "climate cooperation" to exploit the ecological resources of developing countries and regions in a disguised manner. Today’s climate change problem is the cumulative result of hundreds of years of emissions from Western industrialization. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution’s use of fossil fuels and throughout the deepening process of industrialization, the population of developed countries—representing only 20% of the world—has emitted approximately 60% of greenhouse gases, directly causing climate change and seriously endangering public health. To shift the risk of nuclear pollution, the Japanese government—completely disregarding the opposition of neighboring countries—initiated the discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water into the sea. This will have an incalculable impact on the marine ecological environment and has triggered strong condemnation and opposition from its own citizens and neighboring countries. The ocean is the common property of all humanity; it should not become a field for certain countries to dump their pollution.
On the other hand, Western countries have failed to uphold and fulfill the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" in addressing environmental pollution, continuously evading their governance responsibilities. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change stipulates the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," meaning that while every country has a responsibility to participate in solving climate problems, Western countries have the highest historical greenhouse gas emissions and should therefore bear a greater responsibility for emission reductions, while also assisting countries with economic difficulties in transitioning to clean development models. "However, the Western developed countries, led by the United States, vainly attempt to make the vast number of developing countries bear the bitter fruits of the ecological crisis, while they themselves refuse to shoulder the historical responsibility and realistic obligations of emission reduction." One proof of this is former US President Trump’s 2017 announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, refusing to provide the aid funds for developing countries to cope with climate change and the carbon emission cuts promised in the agreement. Research shows that about 90% of global excess carbon emissions originate from the Western advanced capitalism led by the United States. Not only have they failed to fulfill their own due emission reduction tasks, they have instead pressured developing countries to bear the responsibility for global emission reductions. Canadian scholar Naomi Klein, however, believes that while developing countries like China and India produce greenhouse gases, they do not need to bear the same responsibility as developed countries, because they bear little responsibility for the environmental pollution of the past 200 years. General Secretary Xi Jinping also pointed out in an interview with Reuters: "Upholding principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities does not mean that developing countries should not contribute to the global response to climate change, but rather that it must be consistent with the capabilities and requirements of developing countries."
(3) Waging War and the Massive Plunder of Ecological Resources
Waging war against Third World countries and regions has become an important means for the Western imperialist bloc, led by the United States, to export domestic ecological crises and plunder the energy and resources of other nations.
First, they use war to plunders the resources of other countries on a massive scale. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), composed of Western countries led by the United States, uses the guise of "democracy" and "human rights" globally to continuously co-opt and cultivate "pro-US" and "pro-Europe" factions, creating national divisions and ethnic conflicts in other countries. The fundamental purpose is to occupy and plunder the resources of other nations and turn them into domestic appendages; this is typical imperialist behavior. To control the oil resources of the Middle East, under the guise of maintaining regional security, the US and the West have directly or indirectly launched unjust wars, causing serious humanitarian crises and refugee problems. Not only that, the United States has also personally engaged in the theft of oil. Since 2015, consecutive reports have exposed the theft of oil by US occupation forces in Syria, an act that has exacerbated Syria’s energy shortage. Bashar Jaafari, Syria's Ambassador to Russia, stated: "Our ambulances do not even have fuel to transport the wounded, yet the US has been stealing our gas and oil and transporting it to third countries."
Second, imperialist wars have caused incalculable damage to the ecology of underdeveloped countries and regions. During the Vietnam War, the US military used large quantities of toxic chemicals, the most harmful of which was "Agent Orange" (also known as a defoliant). This caused a devastating disaster for the local ecosystem; species in areas contaminated by Agent Orange faced mass extinction, and human diseases became frequent. Even now, the adverse ecological impacts of hazardous chemical residues persist, fully exposing the anti-ecological and anti-human nature of imperialism. NATO, led by the United States, has repeatedly used depleted uranium bombs—which possess both radioactive and chemical toxicity—in wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even as recently as 2023, the United States provided depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine.
III. Transcending the "Green Illusion"
Facts have proven that the series of measures taken by late capitalism to deal with the ecological crisis will only make the already strained ecological chain even more constricted, which destines the hope of capitalism escaping its ecological predicament to eventually shatter. This necessitates transcending the logic of capital, realizing a dual transformation of institutions and values, and drawing on the wisdom and solutions of China's construction of ecological civilization to truly forge a path of modernization characterized by harmony between humanity and nature.
(1) Transcending the Capital Logic of Private Ownership of the Means of Production
The fundamental path to achieving a sound ecological environment lies in breaking through the framework of the capitalist system and replacing capitalist private ownership with socialist public ownership. To transcend the Western green transition schemes, one must reveal their anti-ecological nature and shake the foundations of the capitalist system and the capitalist mode of production, because "capitalism itself is the fundamental disaster that needs to be exorcised."
On the one hand, green capitalism is inherently "anti-ecological" because the capitalist system and the logic of capital behind it are the root causes of the ecological crisis. In the view of Marx and Engels, "modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." That is to say, "as long as private ownership of the means of production exists, the global environment will continue to be destroyed." For example, to alleviate the internal contradiction between the socialization of production and the private ownership of the means of production, and to compensate for the hazards brought by overproduction in the pursuit of profit maximization, capitalism has accelerated the massive plunder of global resources. This has resulted in the privatization of public natural resources and the polarization of access to ecological resources. Simultaneously, through the processes of capitalizing natural resources and externalizing the costs of damage, they conceal the disguised exploitation of the working class and the inherent flaws of the capitalist system. Thus, the capitalist system and its mode of production are the root causes of the ecological crisis, and the ecological crisis simply cannot be resolved under the capitalist system. Whether through market mechanisms or seeking technological innovation, the paths of green capitalism will only exacerbate the ecological crisis.
On the other hand, to solve ecological problems, strong institutional safeguards must be established; socialist public ownership can better ensure that ecological resources are not occupied and plundered by capital. First, advocating for the establishment and improvement of socialist public ownership can better safeguard the interests of the people. "Transform social relations of production along a socialist direction. The dominant force of such a society is not the pursuit of profit but the fulfillment of the real needs of the people and the requirements of social-ecological sustainable development." The socialist system can achieve effective regulation of the power of capital, excluding the possibility of its infinite appropriation of ecological resources, enabling people to share natural resources fairly, and promoting the realization of ecological justice. Second, socialist public ownership can better achieve overall planning that balances economic development and ecological protection. Under socialist public ownership, the distribution and utilization of resources are subject to stricter supervision, ensuring that economic activities do not lead to the over-exploitation of natural resources and avoiding the erosion of public natural resources by private capital and its disorderly expansion in the ecological field. Economic development and ecological protection are no longer in an adversarial relationship but are mutually reinforcing and supporting, creating a better future for subsequent generations.
In short, socialism is based on the free and well-rounded development of the individual and the protection of the common interests of all humanity; the relationship between humanity and nature is one of truly benign interaction. It is in this sense that we can conclude: only under socialist public ownership can ecological justice be truly realized, the deterioration of the ecological environment caused by blind economic development be effectively avoided, and reliable institutional support be truly provided for the protection of our ecological environment.
(2) Transcending the Subject-Object Opposition through Harmony between Humanity and Nature
The concept of harmony between humanity and nature aims to transcend the notion of subject-object opposition between humans and nature found under the capitalist system, ultimately realizing a more balanced and sustainable relationship between the two, which contains profound ethical value. To truly improve the ecological environment and achieve green development, the adversarial relationship between the traditional "human" and "nature" must be reshaped. "Green development, in its essence, is about successfully resolving the issue of harmony between humanity and nature."
First, handling the relationship between humanity and nature through the concept of "harmonious coexistence" constitutes a substantive transcendence of Western green ideological trends and the "ecological modernization" model. The concept of the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature truly follows the sustainable development philosophy of respecting, adapting to, and protecting nature. It views humanity and nature as a "community of life" [6] characterized by interdependence and shared prosperity; only through such harmonious coexistence can human development and social progress be truly realized. It not only breaks through the contradictory opposition between traditional "anthropocentrism" and "ecocentrism," but also represents a revolutionary transcendence of the ecological governance models of late capitalism. Second, the path of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature emphasizes meeting the normal needs of current generations without compromising the future development of descendants. All human activities should respect natural laws and the boundaries of ecosystems, avoiding the imposition of pressure and further destruction upon the natural environment. Ensuring the rational utilization and protection of existing resources to meet the needs of current and future generations facilitates the unification and realization of intra-generational and inter-generational justice.
(3) The Practical Dimension: Advancing Green Transformation through the Construction of Socialist Ecological Civilization
Since the 18th Party Congress, under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization, China has achieved a series of practical successes in the construction of socialist ecological civilization. By continuously advancing a comprehensive green transformation, China has contributed the practical wisdom of Chinese-path ecological governance modernization toward solving global ecological dilemmas, forging a path of Chinese-path ecological modernization characterized by the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature.
First and foremost, in the practice of our country’s ecological civilization construction, we uphold the concept that "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" [7] and consistently place ecological civilization construction in a prominent position within the overall framework of work. Taking solid, practical action to handle and respond to global ecological problems is the foundation and source of our confidence in demonstrating our responsibility as a major country. "In the context of contemporary China, the construction of ecological civilization is set against the era-defining background of ecological revolution in human civilizational development, the innovation of civilizational forms, and comprehensive transformation; it is also an ecological civilization construction within a context where 'development is the top priority.'" [8] China has integrated "Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality" into the overall layout of economic and social development and ecological civilization construction. We have clarified the strategic direction and target requirements for the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development, demonstrating China's image as a major power willing to work with global partners to continuously contribute to greater progress in global climate governance.
Secondly, China facilitates ecological construction in other developing countries and supports the high-quality development of the "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI), demonstrating its responsibility as the world's largest developing country. China actively advocates for South-South cooperation, has established the "South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund," and actively carries out project cooperation in the field of addressing climate change. By providing technical assistance and financial support within its capacity, China assists developing countries in improving their ability to respond to climate change. China is actively building a "Green Belt and Road," deepening cooperation on ecological and environmental protection with participating countries, continuously promoting the green transformation of regional economies, and supporting the construction of ecological infrastructure and the development and upgrading of green industries in these nations. The Memorandum of Understanding on Building a Green Belt and Road signed between the Chinese government and the United Nations Environment Programme aims to build an environmentally friendly "Belt and Road." China has also signed more than 50 cooperation documents with various relevant countries and international organizations to jointly commit to ecological and environmental protection. At the same time, China actively promotes the "Green Silk Road Messenger Program," which has successfully trained over 3,000 professionals serving more than 120 BRI partner countries. In the future, China will increase its support for the International Coalition for Green Development on the Belt and Road and investment in BRI partner countries to promote green development.
Finally, China actively participates in the joint construction of global ecological civilization and guides the international negotiation agenda for addressing global climate change. Climate change is recognized today as one of the preeminent global issues and a key factor restricting sustainable development. China actively participates in international climate change negotiations, commits to strengthening friendly cooperation among nations, promotes the negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and engages in dialogue with all parties through multilateral channels to promote consensus in the international community on climate change issues. China has not only become a well-deserved important participant and contributor to the construction of global ecological civilization but is also increasingly playing a leading role. For example, China organized and participated in the negotiations of many international environmental conventions, such as the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention, and is committed to promoting synergy and cooperation among various international organizations. China served as the presidency for the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15), which adopted the "Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework." This framework outlines the vision of "living in harmony with nature" by 2050 and clarifies the global biodiversity protection goals for 2030, which is of significant and far-reaching importance for global environmental governance. Furthermore, China was the first in the world to propose and implement the "Ecological Protection Red Line" system [9], promoting large-scale, holistic protection of ecological spaces and endangered species. This provides a "China Solution" for global ecological protection and governance, practicing through practical action the responsibility of a responsible major power on the international stage.
In summary, the exposure, critique, and transcendence of the green illusions of late capitalism show that in the current advancement of our country's ecological civilization construction, we must recognize the anti-ecological nature of capitalism's pursuit of profit. Simultaneously, amidst the "Changes Unseen in a Century," [10] we must seek opportunities for ecological transformation, strive to unite the people of the world, and continuously inject new vitality into global environmental governance and the joint construction of ecological civilization. Only in this way can we comprehensively promote green transformation and jointly build a beautiful world where humanity and nature coexist in harmony.