The 21st century will be defined not only by military alliances and financial markets but also by the transformation of global energy architecture. At the heart of this transformation lies a deep ideological divergence between China and the United States, two nations whose energy policies encapsulate competing visions of power, development, and sovereignty.
While the US clings to a fossil-energy legacy underscored by political populism, China has redefined its energy strategy as a multidimensional exercise in security, innovation, and global leadership. This divergence is not merely technical. It embodies two civilizational responses to the question of how nations should power their futures. The implications are profound for economies that model themselves on either structure, particularly for Hong Kong, whose service-based economy bears a closer resemblance to the US than to the industrial core of the Chinese mainland. The path Hong Kong chooses will determine whether it becomes a marginal observer of history or a central participant in the next chapter of global energy.
The American energy posture, particularly under the influence of the current political leadership, reveals an ideological rigidity that prioritizes the expansion of fossil fuels as a means of national resurgence. This is not a matter of economic pragmatism but of political theater. The most emblematic manifestation of this ideology came with the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation dismantled critical environmental regulations, opening vast new tracts of land and coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation. Rather than acknowledging the mounting scientific and economic evidence pointing toward renewable energy as the future of global power systems, this legislative agenda sought to reassert fossil fuels as the cornerstone of American greatness. It was a decision obviously not grounded in foresight. The act’s celebration of deregulation and domestic extraction reveals a worldview fixated on short-term gains and political optics at the expense of systemic adaptation and global responsibility.
China, by contrast, has positioned itself as the architect of a new energy paradigm. This is not a claim based on rhetoric, but on demonstrable outcomes. China has already secured an overwhelming lead in solar panel production, battery storage technology, and wind turbine manufacturing, which are not isolated industrial achievements; they are the result of a coordinated national strategy that integrates State planning, private sector innovation, and international diplomacy. The ability to marshal resources efficiently toward long-term strategic goals has enabled China to construct the physical and technological foundations of a clean energy superpower. This model is more than adequate; it is exemplary. It demonstrates that State capacity, when aligned with scientific clarity and technological ambition, can outpace the market-driven hesitations of Western economies. The Chinese approach sees environmental stewardship not as a burden but as an opportunity to shape the next century’s dominant industries.
The rationale for China’s energy transformation extends beyond environmental motivations. It is anchored in a sophisticated understanding of geopolitical vulnerability as well. With over 80 percent of its imported oil passing through maritime routes susceptible to foreign naval control, China views energy independence as a matter of national security. Every solar panel deployed and every gigawatt of wind capacity added is a step away from strategic exposure. This framing of clean energy as a vehicle for sovereignty elevates the conversation from one of policy preferences to one of existential necessities. It is a recognition that in a world of shifting alliances and unpredictable trade dynamics, energy security must be built upon the stable foundation of domestic resilience. China has not only acknowledged this reality but has also acted decisively upon it.
This strategic clarity stands in stark contrast to the fragmented and often contradictory energy landscape of the US. While the US federal government, under fossil-fuel-friendly leadership, accelerates the expansion of petroleum infrastructure, individual states such as California and New York pursue aggressive clean energy targets, aiming for fully decarbonized electricity grids by midcentury. This internal dissonance reveals a structural incoherence that undermines national competitiveness. A country that lacks consensus on its energy future is not well-positioned to lead a global transformation. Moreover, the emphasis on fossil exports as a tool of foreign policy has created a dangerous dependency on external demand. As more countries shift toward renewables, American hydrocarbons may find themselves increasingly unwelcome in a world that is moving beyond combustion.
China’s clean energy footprint is already significantly redefining global trade patterns. In a single month, China’s solar panel installations can rival the annual output of entire continents. Chinese companies are building solar farms in Latin America, wind farms in Central Asia, and battery plants across Europe. Even in oil-rich regions such as the Middle East, Chinese engineering and capital are being enlisted to construct the infrastructure of a postpetroleum age. This is not merely economic expansion; it is a quiet reordering of global influence. By making itself indispensable to the world’s clean energy transition, China has positioned itself at the forefront of the future of every nation seeking to decarbonize. This is the essence of soft power in the 21st century —an ability to lead not through coercion but through persuasion.
For Hong Kong, these developments demand a profound rethinking of its trajectory. The city’s economy, heavily reliant on finance, logistics, and professional services, is vulnerable to the same energy fragilities that haunt the American model. As data centers and digital infrastructure become major energy consumers, the need for a resilient, clean energy backbone becomes not only an environmental concern but also a commercial imperative. Hong Kong cannot afford to regard energy policy as the domain of mainland provinces alone. It must recognize that its relevance in the coming decades will depend on its ability to align with and contribute to the national energy strategy.
This alignment is not a matter of political loyalty, but rather a matter of rational self-interest. By integrating more deeply into the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and leveraging its unique legal and financial systems, Hong Kong is well-positioned to become the green finance capital of Asia. It can facilitate international investment in renewable infrastructure, structure carbon markets with global credibility, and serve as a conduit for sustainability-oriented capital flows. This is not a retreat from globalization but a reconfiguration of it — one in which Hong Kong plays a critical role in connecting Chinese mainland innovation with global demand. However, to seize this opportunity, Hong Kong must abandon false neutrality and embrace a proactive role in national development.
Those who argue that China’s leadership in clean energy may provoke resistance or decoupling from other countries fail to grasp the depth of global interdependence. The production chains for renewable energy technologies are already centered in China. Efforts by Western nations to re-create these supply chains domestically are fraught with inefficiencies and technological gaps. The simple reality is that the climate crisis cannot be solved without the participation of China. Attempts to sideline China in the name of diversification are not only unrealistic but also counterproductive. China’s dominance in clean energy is not a threat to global progress; it is a precondition for it.
The energy strategies adopted by China and the US represent more than divergent policy paths. They are declarations of intent about the kind of world each nation seeks to shape. The US has chosen to entrench itself in a vanishing era, in which fossil fuels are treated as permanent instruments of power. China has chosen to lead the emergence of a new era, where energy is clean, sovereign, and strategically indispensable. For Hong Kong, the decision is not between East and West, but between inertia and innovation. The current of history is unmistakable. When the grid defines power, those who build it will write the rules.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
