Belen De Los Santos:

So through this whole conversation, China has been maintaining this position of being able to balance development on the one hand, but the possibility of doing that protecting the environment—at least that is the way that it is phrased. Could you tell us how that translates into concrete actions, like concrete examples? Because that is one of the major discussions. Like, for developing countries in Latin America, the discussion is many governments are saying, “We cannot just care about the environment, we cannot care about emissions. We just need to produce.” And not only developing countries—that is the stance of the US. That is the stance of Trump saying “we have to drill.” Now China is presenting like another approach. How would you translate that?

Wei Tianchen:

Yes, China has experienced a lot of struggles and explorations in how to balance development with environmental protection. During the very early stage of industrialization, China faced huge pressure, especially from those developed countries, and they kept urging China to protect the environment, even at the cost of slowing down economic growth. But their real intention was to hinder China’s development. And this is the same thing they do to countries in Africa, countries in Latin America. At one point, some people even pushed the idea that Chinese people should consume less meat, eggs, and dairy to reduce environmental pollution. That used to be a very big thing. China cannot abandon economic development, but China also wants to take environmental protection seriously.

So it has been working so hard to find a balance between these two. After all, economic growth is ultimately for human wellbeing. If the environment goes too bad and people cannot live, no matter how fast the economy grows. Let’s take clean energy industry for example. China chose to build up the clean industries first—like the renewables, the EVs, the high-speed railway—and then gradually phase down the heavy industries. So in this way, the Chinese economy gained new drivers of growth and employment. And it gives time to these maybe less developed, these resource-dependent regions, more time and more flexibility for them to adapt to the new situation. So in different regions, China adopts different policies. Like in more developed areas, in more wealthy and more industrially advanced provinces like Shanghai, in Guangdong, these areas faced earlier and stricter climate targets. But these poorer regions, they received longer timelines for them to complete the climate targets.

Overall, this is a very massive, huge, long-term project. And it requires planning from top to down level and sustained implementation for years and years. China has invested tremendous efforts into making this feasible. But I can totally understand how difficult it is. And I think China’s experience can be transferable to the Global South countries. So overall, this is a massive, long-term project requiring planning from the top to the very down level and sustained implementation. For years, China has invested tremendous efforts into making this balance possible.

As I just mentioned, China experienced gigantic pressure at the very early stage, because the Western countries tried so hard to hinder China’s economic development. So I was wondering, is the same thing happening in Latin America as well? Because I have read some news that at this time at the COP30, there are native groups protesting at the venue, and even ones trying to disrupt the conference. So in China, many of these protest groups are often supported by American or European NGOs, or even directly by their governments. So I was wondering, is the same thing happening there in Brazil this time? Or are these protests representative of the local communities, of the local sentiment?

Belen De Los Santos:

I think that is such an interesting question. And I think these are very complex topics and many things are at play. So maybe we could break down some of these interests here in Latin America. And you were saying it before—you were not an expert, I’m not either. I’m just covering this as a news reporter in general, with a particular interest in this topic and how it plays out in the continent. So I think there’s a lot of things to break down from that great question.

First of all, I don’t think that we could equate these protests that you were signaling. The indigenous and native movement here in Latin America has been carrying out a very much thought-out struggle, with a lot of reasons behind it, against all the corporations and all the lobby and all the interests that are attacking and hindering the actions to preserve the lands and to preserve the resources.

So I think that is a very real and genuine struggle, and we need to understand those protests and those demonstrations in Brazil and also across Latin America. Just off the top of my head, for example, Honduras has a major movement in order to preserve those lands and against the corporations trying to destroy it. At this moment in Argentina, there are great mobilizations in order to protect the water sources that are also being targeted by other corporations. So you can map this across the continent. This is not directly linked, even though there may be overlapping, or we could see some examples. But I definitely would point out that many of these protests are coming from indigenous, native movements that are very much linked to the land, to another way of dealing with nature, with our natural resources, of preserving them in a much more caring way that is against the capitalistic extractivism way of dealing with those resources that has no regard for land and for the people who live there as well.

We need to understand those demonstrations in that way. And many of those demonstrations were basically targeting or against the major corporations, major lobbies, major interests that are many times—and that is a very important thing to point out here in Latin America—many times international interests. So not national governments that are trying to promote that industrial growth, but many international interests that have no regard for their land. It’s not even their land. So they’re not so careful about it. And they’re doing a way of extractivism that is really hurting that land. It’s using those natural resources in a way that is not going back in a sovereign way to those states and is particularly harming those populations around them.

So a lot of the demonstrations that were happening in the context of this COP30 were demonstrations that were trying to point out that in these same conferences—and this was in the demonstrations, but many leaders, for example, Colombian President Gustavo Petro also brought this up in his speech—they were saying these climate conferences are very important to come to agreements, to propose new goals and hopefully actions, but also in this climate conference, there’s a lot of corporate lobby. There’s a lot of companies that are coming here in order to stop those agreements. There are a lot of interests coming here in order to, for example, stop the possibility of phasing out fossil fuels. There’s a lot of that going on. At the same time, as you were saying, they’re putting the pressure on developing countries to take extra measures to care for those resources.

So many of those protests were signaling that hypocrisy of capitalistic enterprises taking part of this conference with complete disregard for those peoples that are actually living in the land and trying to protect those natural resources. And that was also a very important thing about having this conference in the Amazon—the importance of those native peoples from that area that know the land, and that are a very important part of the discussion regarding those natural resources, and that have for centuries been disregarded, oppressed. So the Brazilian president Lula himself and many leaders were pointing out—and in Latin America, this is becoming, at least with progressive governments, more and more important—the idea of recognizing the importance of those indigenous movements, beliefs, and knowledge in terms of the usage of the land.

In order to care for a territory, if we want to care for a territory, we need to give a higher place to those peoples who have forever lived in this territory, who know how to care for it, who have a much more comprehensive understanding of what it means to belong to the land and to care for it, than just capitalistic enterprises that come from the Global North and are coming here to take out resources, take out the money from those resources, and many times are leaving those peoples around it without water, without energy, and with polluted and contaminated rivers.

So that is part of the discussion that is so important.

And also we need to keep into consideration that international lobby is one of the things that is hindering the possibility of taking sovereign action and coordinated action in order to exploit those resources in a way that will care for the environment, that will help in the energy transition, that will help not only the Latin American-Caribbean region, but also the entire world. Because Latin America, as Africa is as well, are places in the world that with the correct investment, but also with the correct integration and cooperation, they could be centers in the world to provide clean energy in order to phase out the fossil fuels and move into a world in which we are not just destroying the planet as we go.

But for that, you need investment that at this moment, Latin America and Africa do not have. And not only investment—you need coordination, and you need states that are acting in a sovereign way in order to put all those efforts together to achieve those goals. Because these are goals that, for example, you need massive infrastructure, interconnected infrastructure in order to use and generate all of that potential.

But if instead of those integrated sovereign states working towards a common goal, you have a couple of governments that are completely aligned to direct interference with the US, that are willing to break all ties with other Latin American governments, and completely just hand out the rivers and hand out all the natural resources to the highest bidder and just have no regulations in terms of the environment because they are having a discourse that climate change is a myth, a progressive myth, then that cannot happen.

So all of that is at play. I think the question was so good because it was pointing out how it’s super different when you’re thinking about one state thinking about its development, like China, and how that goes along with the protection of environment, or how that challenges the protection of environment—so what measures we need to take. But in this case, what you have is a lot of different governments that are also pushed by a lot of international interests and Northern interests that are inside these governments and inside these natural territories. And everyone is pushing their own way. So that is one of the major challenges for Latin America.

But we have projects of integration. And there are proposals, and there have been examples of projects that have moved forward. It’s always challenged by these interests and divisions. So I was wondering if you could tell us some of the examples of how China has been able to take this idea of development with the caring of the environment, or how to apply technology that comes from the development. So you were saying that China was able to foster the technology first and then phase out the harder, harsher areas of the economy afterwards, or then apply that technology to improve the environment. I know that China has had some very interesting experiences in that sense. Could you tell us a little bit about those?

Wei Tianchen:

Sure. There is a famous example in China’s northwestern region. There’s a vast desert on that part of China. There is a desert called Kubuqi Desert. So in Kubuqi Desert, China’s environmental protection approach also includes an economic model, not just a technical one. For example, the ecological restoration was linked to the local industries—from herbal plants to solar farms—which actually gave the local communities real incentives to protect them, because they can actually benefit from this industrial, from these environment-friendly industries. This model is more likely called the eco-industry model. So it’s something that developing countries are particularly interested in, because it really tackles the biggest problem. Because the biggest problem is that when the environmental programs come to the locals and the local people don’t benefit, they are going to protest that.

But if we are using some frontier technology to create jobs, to increase their salaries, and to provide new opportunities for economic development, it’s going to boost the whole town. So the whole town can be built on these new industries, this new clean industry. So that’s what we did in the Kubuqi Desert. You can see people working in the solar farms. They learn how to plant new kinds of herbal plants, which help to keep the soil, keep the soil from further desertification. Also, it involves a lot of people—you have to do the long-term monitoring of the desertification process. And that also creates a lot of jobs and job opportunities.

So this technology has already been tested in China’s very harsh environments. And it also has been experimented in some other countries, like in the Middle East and in Central Asia. This technical part can be directly transferred to these countries with similar issues. And also, China’s governance experience can also be transferable to these regions—like how to communicate, how to negotiate with the local community, how to coordinate the central governments, how they coordinate with the local governments. These also—the technical part and the practical part—they can all help the Global South countries to adapt these techniques to their local conditions.

Belen De Los Santos:

So interesting to think. I was just resonating on a couple of words that you were mentioning there—how important it is to think about this topic in terms of the global and the local, right? It’s maybe one of the issues that most highlights how this is a global issue. We cannot think like no country can deal with this on its own. No locality can deal with this on its own. Because of course, climate change does not come from one country. It does not come from one region.

It may be the only, or the most evident problem that we have literally altogether. But you were pointing to the local solutions. And I think that, or at least the way in which in every place, locally, people can target the issue and also be benefited by that solution. And so that creates a positive reinforcement. And I definitely think that for many issues that we are facing, and this one in particular, that possibility of building on local solutions that benefit those people directly is one of the keys. Because the problem with global issues is that we’re not responsible—no one is responsible. It’s like a global entity responsible. So nobody takes accountability. And there’s the idea that nothing can be done. And when you find local solutions, you have that sense of achievement. People get the feeling back that things can be done and that those communities can be positively impacted.

Editor: Charriot Zhai