The United States kicked open the door to the Paris Agreement, and global climate governance instantly became unbalanced.

Just as Washington announced the launch of the "retreatment" procedure, Beijing and the EU quickly declared "continue to resist" within less than 48 hours. Within one retreat and one advance, who is actively grasping the green voice of the future is about to emerge.

The problem today is not "who is still reducing emissions", but "who will make rules". The US retreat is not just a policy shift, but a power gap in the global landscape.

Next, who will fill this gap? At present, China seems to have taken a key step.

Not just quit the group: the "vacuum effect" of American climate policy

It is not news that the United States announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but this time it is really "taken the process". According to UN rules, the US will not truly break away from its legal obligations until 2026.

However, the action has already taken place. In June, the White House closed the Office for Global Change Research, and then the U.S. representative seat at the COP30 meeting became the "empty chair incident" in the global environmental protection circle.

This is not just a matter of absence from the meeting, but a symbol of the abdication of leadership in the field of climate governance.

This wave of ebbs directly impacted the clean energy investment field.

According to data from the Wall Street Journal, in the first half of 2025, the United States' investment in wind and solar energy fell by 12% year-on-year, while China was ahead of the board, accounting for 40% of global new energy investment.

While cutting budgets, the US is calling for "energy independence". It seems self-sufficiency, but in fact it is gradually falling behind in the global green transformation.

The international community's response is also very interesting. The United Nations did not criticize it by name, but emphasized in its statement that "collective action still needs to be accelerated." This sounds like calling for the whole class to gather, but in fact it lacks the class monitor.

The EU is more direct, and in a joint statement with China on July 24, it will reiterate its intention to "deepen green partnership". Anyone with discerning eyes can see that this is a replacement.

What is more noteworthy is that the emotions in developing countries are also beginning to boil. As the host of COP30, Brazil rarely publicly criticized developed countries for their "promise to be delayed", pointing out that the climate fund has not been in place.

Once this is said, the United States' "withdrawal" is not just a withdrawal from the agreement, but another overdrawal of trust in southern countries around the world.

The essential differences in the climate chess game between China and the United States are not just the word "retreat"

When the United States "rejects the group", "refunds money" and "refunds participation" on climate issues, China is quietly "refunding rules", "refunding technology" and "refunding investment".

The fundamental difference behind this advancement and retreat is not complicated: China regards climate strategy as a path to industrial upgrading, while the United States is more like a bargaining chip for political games.

Let’s look at China first. Data from the National Energy Administration shows that as of the first half of 2025, China's total installed capacity of renewable energy reached 2.16 billion kilowatts, accounting for as high as 59.2%.

Don’t think this is just a domestic statistics. China’s green capabilities are exporting along the “Belt and Road”: Egypt’s solar power stations and Ethiopia’s wind power projects are all “green packages” that China’s complete installation output.

And the situation in the United States is much more complicated. On the one hand, it expanded the wind power tax credit, but on the other hand, it increased subsidies to the shale oil industry.

What's even more serious is that the problem of aging in the power grid has not been solved, resulting in the national clean energy consumption rate not even 35%. You try to generate green electricity, but it ends up wasting in vain. It’s like buying a kettle but not having a pipe. How can you drink water?

At the level of rule-making, China is also taking the initiative. The CCER international trading platform after the reform of the national carbon market is not only used domestically, but also intends to challenge the EU's carbon border regulation mechanism (CBAM).

The withdrawal of the United States has opened up space for China-EU cooperation. The new global carbon tariff order has begun to bypass the United States and start a new business.

The contest behind energy: not only environmental protection, but also interest cards

From the climate negotiation table to the trade negotiation table, the energy topic has never been lighter.

Trump played the "energy card" during his tenure: he once proposed to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese energy products in order to force China to buy American shale oil. Unfortunately, China has long been preparing for the future.

China's countermeasures do not rely on being stubborn, but on being confident. Energy imports have diversified, and the supply ratio from Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran has reached nearly 70%, and the proportion of US oil has naturally been marginalized.

Coupled with the flexible regulation of the national strategic reserve release mechanism, the price storm has basically stabilized.

More importantly, China also holds a trump card that is not very noticeable to outsiders: rare earth export quota. Although this card has not been played publicly, it is of great importance in the context of the linkage between energy and high-tech industries.

This game is still spilling out. India and Brazil took advantage of the Brexit divergence window to rush to buy Russian crude oil and lock in low-priced resources.

Germany also quietly broke the "self-limit order" for technology exports to China. Saxony took the initiative to cooperate with Chinese companies in microgrid system projects, releasing the actual demand for China's production capacity. These off-site cases are quietly changing the global energy supply chain.

What is China making up for? Not only is it absent, but also a system upgrade

What the United States gave up is not a "position", but a complete system. China's replacement is no longer a "fill-in-the-pit" response, but is reconstructing the underlying logic of global green governance.

The most typical example is the rise of non-state forces. The "United Carbon Sink Fund" promoted by China recently launched a carbon financing tool called "Green Coin GGD", which does not rely on government endorsement, but on project credit and green yields.

This gameplay has become a new reference template for financing in many developing countries.

Standard setting is also hard currency. The photovoltaic module certification system dominated by Chinese companies is surpassing the IEC standard and becoming the procurement standard for many African countries.

South-South cooperation is no longer just a "delivery equipment", but a whole package output of "binding technology training financing". Taking the Ethiopian wind power EPC model as an example, Chinese companies take care of design, construction, maintenance and financing, and even package the carbon market registration together, and others only use electricity.

These overseas layouts are also in turn forcing domestic industries to upgrade. In order to solve the problem of "cannot be sold" in green electricity, China has launched a demonstration base for ultra-high voltage west-to-east power transmission and hydrogen energy storage.

The carbon quota system has also begun to tighten, and the green electricity premium rate is expected to reach 18% in 2025, directly stimulating enterprises to actively purchase and form a market closed loop that is linked internally and externally.

Conclusion: From withdrawing from the group to filling up, who is writing a new green order?

The withdrawal of the United States is an idle power, and China's replacement is a systematic reconstruction.

Climate governance is no longer just an environmental issue, but a redistribution of global future industrial chains and governance rights. This game does not rely on slogans or postures, but is about technology, rules and trust.