Today, the five largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters are China (27%), the United States (11%), the European Union (7%), India (7%), and Russia (4%). The climate geopolitics arena is led by countries with very different worldviews—yet all have real influence on the international system.
We have entered a new era of global competition, where power dynamics are being tested, and global challenges—like climate change and the restructuring of the energy system to confront it—are pushing the major powers to secure a winning position in this geopolitical race.
In the case of China, it has become nearly omnipresent across global supply chains in multiple industrial sectors. In renewables, Chinese companies have achieved dominant positions—controlling over 80% of the supply chains in key areas, especially solar and batteries.
As for its climate commitments, in 2020 at the United Nations General Assembly, President Xi Jinping announced China’s goal to peak its GHG emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2060—ten years later than most other countries aiming for 2050.
China’s decarbonization plan was formalized at COP26 in Glasgow, where it introduced its “1+N” policy—a formula for transitioning to a decarbonized economy. This framework lays out governance guidelines, financial support mechanisms, and the sector-by-sector transformations required to achieve the goal.
In many ways, China had the foresight to organize itself around the energy transition and the emerging economy tied to it. It bet on technological development to offer solutions to a maturing global market—all while meeting international climate expectations.
China’s vision is clear: it wants to become a technological and economic superpower, and the energy transition represents a strategic opportunity in this race. But this isn’t about climate leadership—it’s a market opportunity, with the primary goal of advancing its own economic development.
And as it grows, China is pursuing a long-term, gradual plan that allows it to reach net zero in an organized, calculated way, without disrupting its trajectory of growth. As someone said at a meeting I recently attended, “The energy transition is a luxury that rich countries can afford.”
When international analysts look at Colombia, the dominant themes tend to be drug trafficking, war, and peace. Colombia’s domestic energy or climate policy doesn’t influence the global system, which suggests that our own energy and climate agenda should be built around Colombia’s specific needs.
This doesn’t mean the country should isolate itself from global reality or climate governance. But if there’s something we could learn from the China formula, it’s that pursuing national development—so urgently needed in Colombia—doesn’t contradict global climate efforts. It’s valid to build a country that prioritizes its own needs, while charting a sustainable path to decarbonization.
Carolina Rojas Gómez
Student, Executive Master of Management in Energy
BI Norwegian Business School
