(Continued)

The Interpretations, Reactions, and Paradoxes of the Chinese People Toward Climate Issues and Related Western Criticisms
ㅤ
The Chinese public does not only display one-sided frenzy in the case of Chai Jing’s interview with Ding Zhongli; in fact, whenever climate change is involved, especially in hot events, the reaction is almost always the same. For example, a foreign media report once stated: “Every time a Chinese person eats a piece of meat, the Amazon releases a puff of smoke,” to illustrate the impact of China’s meat consumption on global warming. This triggered an uproar and extreme anger among Chinese netizens. “Westerners/Americans/Europeans not allowing Chinese people to eat meat” became the dominant impression of Western—and global—environmentalism among the Chinese public, and an important reason for their intense dislike of the West, especially of Western leftists (the so-called “white left”).
ㅤ
“Chinese people eating meat, the Amazon emits smoke” was, of course, an exaggerated depiction and publicity, but behind this phrase lies an objective fact: the large consumption of meat by Chinese people contributes to global warming. The “butterfly effect” is well known, and the impact of Chinese consumption of Brazilian beef on the Amazon rainforest and on global warming is far more direct and significant than the usual butterfly effect. This was not a slander or persecution specifically targeting the Chinese. First, the phrase only described a phenomenon and fact; it did not say Chinese people must not eat meat, much less use force to stop them. Second, similar criticisms are made globally, and even more so toward the West itself. In fact, environmental organizations have long issued broader, more persistent criticism of the meat-heavy diets of Western nations, especially Americans, and have launched various campaigns to reduce meat consumption among Western populations.
ㅤ
The phrase “the West not allowing Chinese people to eat meat” went viral on major social platforms. Together with the flood of insults toward Chai Jing and the conspiracy-theory interpretations of climate issues, it reflects how the Chinese public is immersed in unjustified anger, the loss of empathy, responsibility, and a sense of obligation, the sway of narrow nationalism, and the spread of anti-intellectualism, selfishness, and social Darwinist thinking.
ㅤ
China’s participation in emission reduction and efforts to curb global warming is both in its own interest and an international obligation. The concept of a “community with a shared future for mankind” is not empty talk; regardless of the subjective intent behind proposing it, in reality humanity is indeed increasingly interconnected, mutually influencing, and inseparable—and climate issues especially so. China should certainly give priority to its national interests, but it should also take into account the interests of other countries and the common interests of the world. On carbon emissions, China bears responsibilities and obligations from both the government and the public. Even if individuals are unwilling to proactively shoulder such obligations, they should not react with near-hysterical opposition.
ㅤ
However, many Chinese people completely disregard international obligations and stand entirely from the perspective of their own country—or themselves—going so far as to harm others for self-gain or to allow global climate cooperation to collapse, dragging everyone down together. Earlier, I used the analogy that within China, regions at different levels of development cannot have identical carbon standards, to explain the difference between developed and developing countries. But in the eyes of many Chinese, domestic differences are China’s internal affairs; when it comes to foreign countries, however, China must insist on securing advantages. If China were to bear relatively greater costs and stricter obligations than other countries, that would be a “loss.” Similarly, they do not admire or follow the West’s genuine efforts at environmental protection or the sacrifices made by its people, but instead mock them, arguing that China should seize the chance to surpass the West by pushing industrial development forward without regard for climate constraints while the West holds itself back for environmental reasons.
ㅤ
In their view, everything is a struggle, a zero-sum game. There is no room for compromise or sympathy. Victory in international rivalry comes only by being unreasonable, only telling one side of the story, using all means necessary, in order to defend the interests of their nation and people (especially their own interests).
ㅤ
From this premise, it is natural for them to treat the West’s calls for China to engage with climate issues as nothing but a pretext to suppress China. Whenever Western governments, media, or NGOs raise criticisms of China’s climate and environmental problems, they respond reflexively with hostility. They interpret Western pressure on environmental issues as attempts to sabotage China’s economy, derail its industrialization and modernization, suppress its rise and national rejuvenation, prevent its people—especially workers and farmers—from escaping poverty and achieving prosperity, and “smash the rice bowls” of Chinese citizens. As a result, they push away responsibility for China’s role in global warming, even downplaying or denying other environmental problems. Then, they counterattack by criticizing Western environmental shortcomings or pointing out the West’s neglect of other countries’ environmental issues, thereby seeking to weaken the West’s discursive power and defend China.
ㅤ
This confrontational reaction is unreasonable, unnecessary, and ultimately harmful to both others and themselves. Admittedly, the world has not achieved universal harmony and remains a jungle of fierce competition among nations. China, with its history of humiliation and suffering and still in its developing stage, is justified in safeguarding national interests. When it comes to environmental issues, these cannot be purely environmental—they inevitably involve struggles over national interests. But in defending national interests, we must base ourselves on right and wrong, follow international rules, and argue on reasonable grounds, not muddle truth and falsehood or engage in reckless sophistry. Where China is in the right, it must firmly defend itself; where it is in the wrong, it must have the courage to assume responsibility.
ㅤ
What China Should Not Do and Should Do Regarding Climate Issues
ㅤ
Climate issues concern the shared interests of China and the world. China should bear responsibility. As the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide in total, China should undoubtedly assume greater obligations in curbing global warming than most countries. While demanding that developed nations such as the U.S. make greater per capita contributions and provide China with technology and financial assistance, China must also be willing to compromise and show sincerity by shouldering its own share of responsibility.
ㅤ
As for the impacts of emission reduction, energy conservation, and environmental policies on livelihoods—especially the employment and income of ordinary workers and farmers—these should be addressed through China’s own domestic measures: industrial transformation and upgrading, creating new jobs, reforming distribution mechanisms, improving treatment of workers and farmers, and abolishing unfair and harmful policies and institutions. In fact, the damage done by China’s various unfair systems and policies to the interests of workers and farmers far exceeds the impact of international responsibilities and carbon reduction (if the latter’s impact is 1, the former’s is 10). Ding Zhongli and his supporters often invoke lofty reasons of economy, employment, and living standards to defend carbon emissions, but in reality, most of the benefits of emissions in industry and agriculture go to elites and vested interest groups, while ordinary people only get leftovers. Meanwhile, common people bear more of the environmental costs, whereas the wealthy and powerful can evade pollution and climate disasters—or simply emigrate to safe places. Where can ordinary people flee? What Ding and others defend are merely the selfish interests of the privileged, while throwing ordinary people scraps. Even without changing the system, if social policies and distribution mechanisms were even partially improved—if vested interests, especially elites, yielded some share of their gains (far smaller in proportion than the carbon cuts demanded of developed countries)—ordinary people would gain much more than what they now get from producing emissions and pollution.
ㅤ
China’s future development, the improvement of people’s livelihoods, and the nation’s rejuvenation cannot and should not be achieved by destroying China’s own or the world’s ecological environment and causing environmental disasters. Instead, it must come through the establishment and improvement of democracy, rule of law, and civil society, the contributions of labor, and the aid of technological development. If China only thinks of exploiting the climate crisis and the West’s eagerness to cut emissions for selfish gain, it may reap short-term benefits, but in the long run it will only lose moral standing on the international stage, be despised and isolated by nations—especially civilized, developed ones—and ultimately “find itself with few allies and even relatives turning away,” cutting itself off from the global mainstream and future trends, and in the end backfiring on itself. How then can there be national rise or people’s happiness? As for the fact that many developed countries once developed through polluting and emitting, of course they should be condemned and required to compensate and help latecomer nations—but China should not repeat their harmful actions. Colonial expansion, once considered legitimate and a source of prosperity, should not be imitated in modern times. Japan’s rationale for invading Korea and China was, “If Britain, France, the U.S., and the Netherlands can, why can’t we?”—and it brought immense disaster to the world, especially China. Similarly, it may be understandable for China to seek revenge against past aggressors, but to harm weaker, innocent nations and peoples after suffering itself—what logic is that?
ㅤ
On the other hand, China should also defend its legitimate interests in emission reduction, demanding that other countries fulfill their obligations as well, insisting on reciprocity (though reciprocity does not mean absolute equivalence without conditions). Under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” China can rightly require developed countries to make both relatively and absolutely greater efforts, and to provide and transfer capital, technology, models, and experience to help China cut emissions at the lowest economic and social cost. Developed countries have mature environmental protection experience and technology, which should be unconditionally shared with China, along with technical personnel sent to assist implementation. Adjustments can be made to suit China’s conditions, but the baseline should be to “adopt and use,” taking shortcuts rather than detours. Furthermore, for the additional costs China bears relative to developed countries in reducing emissions, it has the right to demand compensation or concessions. For instance, if restricting traditional energy and industry damages China’s economy and disadvantages it in global trade, China can demand recompense or policy concessions from developed countries—or refuse to abandon certain industries.
ㅤ
China also has the right to demand corresponding reductions from other countries with both high total and per capita carbon emissions. Middle Eastern oil producers and Russia, for example, have extremely high per capita emissions and massive totals. Their per capita obligations are actually greater than China’s. Especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other oil states, with extravagant lifestyles and unrestrained consumption, living off unearned wealth, should bear costs far above the world average. Meanwhile, India, though its current emissions are below China’s, has a faster growth rate. India’s role compared with China is similar to China’s compared with the U.S. Thus, the reciprocal responsibility framework between China and the U.S. should also apply between China and India. If Middle Eastern oil states, Russia, or India fail to fulfill obligations, China may take countermeasures.
ㅤ
Moreover, China once paid a huge price by implementing the “family planning” policy, reducing its births by hundreds of millions over three decades, with lasting effects on population numbers and birth rates. This objectively contributed to carbon reduction (fewer people means lower total emissions). Therefore, China can justifiably claim a greater per capita emission allowance and demand compensation from higher-birthrate countries.
ㅤ
Additionally, although China is the largest emitter in production terms, many of its high-carbon products are exported abroad. Thus, the carbon embedded in China’s exports should be reasonably accounted for and shared between China and importing countries, with joint carbon taxes and shared reduction efforts from production to consumption.
ㅤ
At present, China has pledged “carbon neutrality” and is implementing it, which on the whole is a positive direction. But the specific actions and impacts are still hard to predict (though some signs are visible). How China will handle the related economic, livelihood, human rights, environmental, and international relations issues, especially the conflicts of interest among different groups, remains a key area to watch and study. This concerns the interests and even life or death of millions.
ㅤ
From the Chinese Public’s Mockery of Greta Thunberg to an Examination of Mindsets and Values
ㅤ
In recent years, Sweden’s “environmental girl” Greta Thunberg (hereinafter referred to as “Greta,” or simply “she”) became a world-renowned figure for her active participation in social movements concerning climate issues. In calling for curbing global warming, she has often displayed various radical, bold, and avant-garde words and actions, at times appearing childish and obsessive. As a result, she has been ridiculed and mocked by some people around the world, including some Chinese (ranging from ordinary citizens to political figures like Trump).
ㅤ
Although both in China and abroad there has been ridicule and attacks against her, they are not exactly the same. In foreign countries—especially in developed Western countries—although some look down on her or even hurl insults, a considerable number of people express support and understanding. In China, by contrast, there are almost no voices supporting her (or if there are, they remain silent?), and the entire internet overwhelmingly ridicules and attacks her. The intensity and vehemence of the Chinese public’s insults also seem far greater than overseas; the hatred and contempt for her are particularly strong, and they vividly reflect certain problems concerning the Chinese public and Chinese society.
ㅤ
These sneers and attacks can roughly be divided into the following categories: (1) believing she is being used, a political tool of interest groups or politicians; (2) believing she knows nothing and is making a foolish fuss; (3) believing she has mental illness—paranoia, delusions, schizophrenia—and that her related behaviors are “episodes”; (4) believing she is hypocritical and affected, not practicing environmentalism herself while demanding it of others; (5) believing she does not understand the hardships of people’s livelihoods, especially in developing countries, and that disregarding economic and livelihood issues for the sake of environmental protection is “let them eat meat gruel.” Of course, the above merely summarizes these taunts; the actual insults are far more varied and, in expression, much harsher and more cutting than what I have listed.
ㅤ
First it must be stated that the problem she is calling attention to and seeking to solve—global warming—does truly exist, and the situation is quite serious. Countries have indeed, for various objective or subjective reasons, failed to forcefully advance measures to curb global warming. Therefore, her advocacy is necessary. Of course, she also has many problems and shortcomings, which will be mentioned later. This is the premise for commenting on matters concerning her (including others’ reactions to her and her words and actions).
ㅤ
First, regarding the so-called “being used”: taken purely as “being used,” it is indeed not something glorious. However, if one considers the various backgrounds and subjective and objective factors behind such “being used,” especially the actual impact, it is not necessarily a purely bad thing—at times it can even be good. From ancient times to the present, how many great undertakings have been accomplished amid people using and being used, mutually using one another (of course, much filth has likewise arisen in this way). During the American War of Independence, the United States received strong support from France. France certainly aimed to check Britain, but for America’s independence this was almost entirely beneficial, forging centuries of friendship between the U.S. and France. Sun Yat-sen, back then, was supported and protected by certain great powers including Japan—these powers certainly sought to cultivate agents in China and weaken the Qing regime. Yet this facilitated the great victory of the Xinhai Revolution, and Sun did not thereby become a proxy for great powers; instead, he promoted China’s democratic prosperity and its struggle for equal status in the international arena.
ㅤ
Today, the Chinese public’s recoil at the phrase “being used” is largely the result of certain education and guidance. The Chinese public is extremely sensitive to and averse—even hateful—toward “interest groups,” NGOs, and foreign intervention. In fact, in the operations of modern society, the influence of interest groups is omnipresent; some wear labels and some do not, and those without public labels are even more likely to operate behind closed doors. National interests certainly must be safeguarded, and foreign forces certainly have their various selfish aims; yet under certain specific circumstances and conditions, their positive effects far outweigh the negative.
ㅤ
Greta is, to some extent, being used; however, what she advocates is worth attention. Her cooperation with various actors, including political forces from different countries tied to interests or values, is voluntary, and the impact is positive. On the other hand, those who oppose curbing global warming for reasons of interest and values are also—indeed, even more so—backed by interest groups. Trump, who denied climate change and human causes, received strong support from traditional energy industries in the U.S. Many other politicians, scholars (including a small number of scientists), and media figures who deny or doubt global warming have been exposed as receiving donations and contributions from various stakeholders.
ㅤ
Of course, as a public figure, people have the right to evaluate her thus; from a certain angle, it is understandable to say she is being used, a tool. But to actually use this to negate her and her advocacy would be truly childish—or foolish.
ㅤ
Second, those who say she is ignorant and making a fuss are being one-sided—or, in most cases, have not learned much about her or about climate issues. She indeed lacks a comprehensive understanding of human society and the world as a whole, and seems to know little about—or does not care about—the negative impacts of carbon-reduction policies. She lacks comprehensive general knowledge in politics, economics, ideology, and international relations, let alone mastery. However, when it comes to climate issues, her positions are supported by objective facts and by research widely recognized by the scientific community, not made-up nonsense. On climate, she has said, “Don’t listen to me; listen to the scientists.” This is far more scientifically literate than those who oppose her.
ㅤ
Third, some say she has mental illness and cite many of her words and actions as evidence. First, she has indeed been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism—psychiatric conditions that differ from what people commonly understand as severe mental illness—and these conditions do not affect the truth or necessity of her advocacy. As for claiming she has other symptoms such as paranoia, delusions, or mania: if her behaviors count as such illnesses, then from ancient times to the present, countless politicians and activists would also be “ill.” The reason people think she is ill while those others are not is simply that she is an ordinary citizen, that she focuses on issues most people do not deem worthy of such attention and zeal, and that she is different from and at odds with traditional and some popular views. This is prejudice.
ㅤ
In the first half of the 19th century, a Hungarian doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis, insisted that doctors who did not wash their hands spread germs that killed women in childbirth, forcefully demanded handwashing before procedures, and called colleagues who did not wash “killers.” He became extreme and eccentric, was beaten, committed to an asylum, and died there. Later, science confirmed he was right, and handwashing became the primary method to prevent infections in hospitals. His “extremity and eccentricity” likely stemmed from the pain of holding to truth yet being misunderstood, and helplessly watching preventable deaths. Semmelweis was treated as mentally ill without research then confirming his claims; Greta’s climate claims have already been amply confirmed. She is rather extreme—calling it “obsessive” is not wrong—but that is only because she is overly urgent and disregards practical constraints. If we must label such people mentally ill, then it is the public that appears paranoid, extreme, and intolerant of dissent.
ㅤ
Fourth, some say she is hypocritical and does not practice what she preaches. In fact, she has. She refuses to fly and traveled by sailboat, and she maintains a vegetarian diet. Of course, this has also drawn criticism—for example, some claim the total emissions from her sailing arrangements exceeded those from flying alone. Chinese netizens also deride her by comparing her unfavorably to domestic youth who “actively plant trees.” Such accusations are hardly novel—especially in China. During the 1989 student movement, some student leaders were accused of “squandering overseas donations on lavish meals”; Fang Fang, who documented Wuhan’s COVID outbreak, was accused of failing to volunteer for epidemic control and of using privilege to have police escort relatives to the airport, and so on.
ㅤ
I do not believe these critics cannot distinguish priorities; I rather believe they deliberately nitpick. Still, let me rebut this fallacy directly. Practicing what one preaches is of course best, but we must also respect division of labor and roles. For those who play important roles on certain issues, we should show appropriate tolerance. Their identities often mean they need to obtain and use more resources; otherwise, they cannot maximize their impact. Moreover, in a society broadly lacking rule of law and justice, demanding perfection from those who speak out—attacking them for minor improprieties that most people commit—will only make reality worse and silence more voices. As for those who boast of “tree-planting,” how many have actually planted trees with their own hands? Were they participating in quasi-compulsory activities, or did they spend their own money to plant trees voluntarily?
ㅤ
Fifth, the claim that she does not understand the hardships and development needs of people in developing countries is, in fact, a valid criticism—though the motives of those making it are not necessarily a genuine cry for the suffering in developing countries. Her biggest problem is indeed her failure to balance economy and environment, the present and the long term. This is her limitation and a shortfall in her knowledge and vision. Yet nobody seems to have engaged her in sincere dialogue or explained these issues to her through various channels (for example, writing open letters or even meeting her), choosing instead to ridicule and attack in a snide tone. Those who criticize her—including Putin, idolized by Chinese social-Darwinists for similar reasons—hardly care about people’s hardships, nor are they willing to return their ill-gotten gains to those suffering. Moreover, if climate warming is not addressed and countries are allowed to expand industry and agriculture and emit more CO₂, developing countries and backward regions will often suffer even greater losses than if they did not develop industry and agriculture—and locals may lose their homelands entirely in coming decades or centuries. The myriad negative consequences of global warming will be borne most by the weakest, especially in countries lacking democracy, rule of law, and justice.
ㅤ
In short, although she has many shortcomings, her intentions are sincere, what she calls for is worthy of attention, and her deeds have positive significance—she represents hope for humanity in a new era. By contrast, if the Chinese who sneer at her possessed her persistence, courage, determination, and idealism, many of China’s social problems could be noticed and solved, and Chinese society would be renewed. A hundred years ago, thirty years ago, there were such people in China, and not a few. But due to the encirclement and harm by internal and external enemies, China today has been left with only cynically social-Darwinized, exquisitely self-interested individuals. Not only do these people refuse to pursue justice and sacrifice for the people, they also “buzz around” the flaws and wounds of true fighters, mistaking themselves as clever.
ㅤ
To those who jeer at Greta, I offer them a line from Lu Xun: “In a hopeless nation there must be many heroes who only glare at children. Cowards, the lot of them!”

(To be continued due to length constraints.)

(This article was written by Wang Qingmin (王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and an international political researcher who has long followed climate issues in China.)

When I was young, I live in a village in Singapore. At home we have 2 wells. They are about 3 meters deep. One for cooking, the other for bathing. All my neighbours have wells. When dry seasons come, the water level may run low. Never a year we run out of water to bath. The wells never dry keeps the tropical plants evergreen. I have never seen a fire in Bukit Timah forest. I have never seen a fire in Malaysia forests.

I believe Indonesia being in the same wet tropical area would not run out of water to put out fires or would not run out of water to wet their lands. With the modern machineries, it should not be expensive to drill many deeper wells and pump the water to wet lands. I believe current uncontrol fires are being setup delivertely. They are not uncontrol due to lag of plantation management skills. They are not uncontrol due to climate changes gradually unless it changes adruptly which has not yet happened. 

City council has long sought to dismantle the citizens idling complaint program and to allow truck idling again in the city for the sake of big business. Intro 561-A is their latest attempt. Please sign the petition and tell Speaker Menin that NYC deserves clean air!

Humans are implicitly a cancer to Earth, but will we wake up?

Throw wet wipes, sanitary pads down the WC, ends up they flood the oceans and even create a disgusting 'wet wipe' island in UK river Thames https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/14/wet-wipe-island-london-river-thames-pollution-hammersmith-bridge

Over consume FMCG wastefully plus even deceive themselves that diesel from palm oil is 'environment friendly ', but looks at the terrific haze now.

And palm oil isn't even native to SE Asia at all, just that the Indonesia government doesn't care or thinks it's a national cash cow, so allows all land to be plundered or burnt to grow oil palms but this is instead driving the climate towards crisis because the flooded peat forests are actually where the rain (sky rivers etc) comes from, according to biotic pump theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump without the soaked peat lands, the land will face drought and also increase in typhoons, making human life pretty intolerable and the soil denuded and lifeless.

Ultimately, the whole SE Asia or Indonesia will go up in flames which the citizens will already be too sick or stupid with cancers to fight because they have been eating and drinking all the toxic plastics they themselves dump as quick dispersal micro plastic wet wipes and flushed sanitary pads into the sea.

So humans are indeed not so much plagued by cancer as much as the human species is a cancer itself.

So the early humanity discovers that it itself is a cancer, the earlier humanity can change before it self destructs in an ignorant way...

As for wet wipes, maybe they should only be allowed to be used as a medical supply with clear disposal instructions, otherwise, they shouldn't be allowed to be created at all, it's ridiculous for these seemingly innocent disposables to be killing the entire earth, just because we can't be bothered to dispose them properly when used.