Opening keynotes on Green Trade from CCG HQF Sub-forum
November 06 , 2025Transcript: Henry Huiyao Wang, Pascal Lamy, Long Yongtu, and Xu Xiaofeng on Green Trade Liberalisation and the Global Green Transition
Opening keynotes from the 8th China International Import Expo (CIIE) and the Hongqiao International Economic Forum explore how to reconcile open trade with climate goals amid rising green protection.
On November 6, 2025, during the 8th China International Import Expo (CIIE) and the Hongqiao International Economic Forum in Shanghai, a parallel session on “Promoting Green Trade Liberalisation and Accelerating the Global Green Transition” was hosted by China’s Ministry of Commerce and organised by the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), where speakers discussed the future of green trade liberalisation, the need for multilateral rule-making, the risks of unilateral trade measures, and the scientific urgency of speeding up the global green transition.
For several consecutive years, CCG has been commissioned by the Ministry of Commerce to organise a parallel session at the annual Hongqiao International Economic Forum.
The session opened with keynote remarks from
Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President, Center for China & Globalization (CCG)
Pascal Lamy, Vice-President of the Paris Peace Forum, President of the European branch of the Brunswick Group, Coordinator of the Jacques Delors think tank network, and former Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Long Yongtu, Chief Negotiator for China’s WTO accession; former Vice Minister, then Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation; Chair, Strategic Advisory Board, CCG
Xu Xiaofeng, President, China Meteorological Service Association; former Deputy Administrator, China Meteorological Administration
The following is the transcript of the four opening keynotes at the Hongqiao Sub-forum themed “Promoting Green Trade Liberalisation and Accelerating the Global Green Transition,” based on event recordings and unreviewed by the speakers.
Henry Huiyao Wang, Founder and President, Center for China & Globalization (CCG)
Minister Long, dear Pascal Lamy, Vice-President of the Paris Peace Forum and former Director-General of the WTO, President Xu Xiaofeng, distinguished leaders, guests, friends, good afternoon.
Welcome to this parallel session on “Promoting Green Trade Liberalisation and Accelerating the Global Green Transition,” held under the auspices of the 8th China International Import Expo (CIIE) and the Hongqiao International Economic Forum, hosted by the Ministry of Commerce and organised by the Center for China and Globalization (CCG). This is the fourth year in a row that CCG has hosted a sub-forum at the CIIE, and it continues the focus on green development following last year’s session on “Sustainable Trade amid Climate Change.”
Today, we are deeply honoured to have with us Mr Pascal Lamy, former Director-General of the WTO and Vice-President and first President of the Paris Peace Forum. We are also delighted to be joined by Mr Long Yongtu, former chief negotiator for China’s WTO accession and former Vice Minister of the then Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, as well as Mr Xu Xiaofeng, President of the China Meteorological Service Association.
Just twelve days ago, I met Pascal Lamy at the Paris Peace Forum. We had a “10-10-10” dinner and talked about many global issues. In recent years, Mr Lamy has repeatedly underlined the urgency of reshaping the rules of multilateral cooperation in the field of green trade and the global green transition. He believes that green trade liberalisation must be grounded in multilateral rules, and that it is crucial to balance economic efficiency with ecological security through inclusive mechanisms, with particular attention to the differentiated needs of developing countries.
For many years, Minister Long Yongtu has also been an active advocate for China’s integration into globalisation. As we know, this year marks the 24th anniversary of China’s accession to the WTO in 2001. Since joining, China’s GDP has grown by a factor of 13 or 14. As China’s chief negotiator at the time, Minister Long led multiple rounds of talks that ultimately paved the way for China’s WTO entry, and he has repeatedly stressed the need to strengthen global green trade rules through WTO reform.
Minister Long is also the Chair of CCG’s Strategic Advisory Board, and we are truly honoured to have this “Mr Globalist” with us here. His guidance has been tremendously important for our think tank. We are equally pleased to have with us former Deputy Administrator of the China Meteorological Administration, President Xu Xiaofeng, who will share insights on green development from the perspective of global climate change.
Today, we are very glad to use the Hongqiao Forum to provide an ongoing platform for prominent policymakers, experts, industry leaders, and business executives from China and abroad to exchange views on green development and international cooperation. As we all know, the Hongqiao Forum at the CIIE is both a window on China’s high-standard opening up and a platform for building consensus on openness and shaping future trends.
Our focus today is to rethink, in the context of global competition and shifting geopolitics, how China’s opening up can be sustained, upgraded, and advanced in a more favourable way. In the 21st century, the world is entering a new era driven by the green transition; a “green revolution” is becoming a global consensus. Energy transition, low-carbon industries, and green finance are reshaping global capital and technology, and the paradigm of globalisation itself is undergoing a profound shift—from one driven by efficiency and capital to a new model guided by green, secure, and sustainable development. Our task is to continuously advance economic globalisation through a form of green globalisation that supports sustainable development.
I believe China is now entering a new phase of green globalisation, and in this process, China can play an even more active leadership role. In an era where the global green transition is irreversible and industrial transformation is accelerating toward low-carbon pathways, China is leading a new wave of green globalisation. The country not only possesses the most complete industrial chains and a vast domestic market, but also holds a leading position globally in key areas such as photovoltaics, wind power, electric vehicles, and energy storage, making it a major driving force in the global green revolution.
At this new stage of development, Chinese enterprises can go even further in “going global,” bringing their experience, technologies, and services in green development to the wider world, helping to drive—and in some cases lead—the global green transition. I also recall that last year, when Pascal Lamy visited CCG, we discussed how international companies such as BMW’s operations in China could join hands with Chinese firms to go global together and reach more markets.
Of course, the process has not been all smooth. As green trade has grown, we have also seen the rise of green protectionism, and green trade barriers are increasingly affecting global green trade. These are, in a sense, the growing pains of the global green transition. At the same time, they show that, given the differences in development among countries, much more still needs to be done in terms of rules, transparency, and alignment to make the green transition and international cooperation truly work. All of this places higher demands on green globalisation.
It is therefore necessary to further strengthen multilateral exchanges and expand cooperation in green development with both developed countries and those of the Global South. It is essential to continue to improve green governance, deepen technological exchange and standards coordination, and actively explore third-market cooperation, so that China’s new energy and clean-energy technologies can better serve this historic global transition and allow all countries to benefit.
Let me conclude by saying that the CIIE and Hongqiao Forum are a valuable high-level platform for opening up. Through this forum, we can further build global consensus on green development, promote international cooperation, and advance the global green transition, contributing our ideas and our strengths from all sides. Finally, I would like to once again thank all our guests for joining us today, and I very much look forward to your insightful and inspiring remarks. Thank you.
Pascal Lamy, Vice-President of the Paris Peace Forum, President of the European branch of the Brunswick Group, Coordinator of the Jacques Delors think tank network, and former Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Well, good afternoon. Many thanks to the Center for China Globalization for having invited me to share with you a few remarks on this trade and environment nexus. I’ll start by a very simple point, which is that if we look at the priorities on the agenda of the international system today and for the years to come, the first one is to avoid large wars, and this is not a given. And the second one is to reverse the environmental degradation which we have imposed on this planet so far. Whether it’s global warming or biodiversity loss. These two priorities interplay with a necessity, at least for roughly 90% of the people on this planet living for the moment.
The U.S. aside, trade opening interdependence is the way to go, which is the wish and the legitimate wish of a large majority of people on this planet. So how can we together move to better protect our environment and keep trade open? It being given that some environment-related trade measures are now seen by some as a problem. My analysis is simple, and I will start with that and then move to operational conclusions, which I hope will be useful for the discussion.
On the existing state of play, we have two problems. We have a doctrine, but we do not have a mandate or a venue. We have two problems, a big one and a small one. The big one is that the Paris Agreement is based on nationally determined contributions and not multilaterally determined contributions, which means that there are no disciplines in the Paris Agreement that would avoid trade measures to flourish given the heterogeneity which the Paris Agreement leaves open for countries to decarbonize, whether it’s the time horizon, whether it’s the policies they use or whether it’s the trade measures they use. We all agree we have to reduce our carbon footprint, but we do it in a very heterogeneous way. There’s nothing like a global price. There are no regulations that discipline trade measures. So, to put it very simply, for the moment, it’s a mess. That’s the big problem.
We have a smaller problem, which is the U.S. pushing back both on environmental protection and on trade opening. I personally believe that this is something that, with time, will abate. And when I look at where the U.S. business is, I don’t think this is the main issue, although it probably can slow the process, as we have seen it recently at the International Maritime Organisation.
So, we have these problems. The good news is that we have a doctrine of how to address environmental-related trade measures, which is contained in the WTO, TBT, and SPS agreements, Technical Barriers to Trade, and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, whether you read these agreements or if you look at how they have been interpreted by the dispute settlement system of the WTO. In short, some obstacles to trade are legitimate if geared to protecting the environment, provided they are calibrated in a way which is proportionate to the degree of protection you believe you need to enforce. This is based on science. It’s a summary of the doctrine. We could expand this in a few hours if necessary.
So, that’s the good news. We roughly know what direction we should take in better arbitrating between the openness of trade and protecting the environment. The bad news is that we do not have a proper mandate, nor a proper venue. In short, in the WTO, developing countries do not want to open this debate because they fear that this would lead to some sort of green protectionism. And in the UNFCCC or the COPs, like the one that will take place in Belém in a few days, developed countries don’t want to discuss that because they fear to be bashed by developing countries in this forum. So the WTO forum does not work. And the UNFCCC forum does not work either because of this a priori capacity and willingness of both the North and South not to open a serious discussion. There have been, whether in the OECD or in the WTO, attempts to open this or to circumvent the blockages, so far to no effect.
And this leads me to my operational conclusion. First, we need to find a venue to start a discussion. Not a negotiation at this stage, but a discussion from which, if it leads to a narrowing of positions, (we can move) to a proper negotiation. This is the challenge of Brazil in Belém. Brazil, in many ways, is well placed to tackle this issue. They have strong development and trade openness credentials. They have strong environmental credentials, which is why they have decided to table a proposal which was circulated to the WTO a few weeks ago, which is to create what they call an integrated forum on climate change and trade that would not be a negotiating forum. It would be a discussion forum that would bring on the table elements based on serious expertise in order to start opening this issue.
I personally believe that this is the way to go multilaterally, that Brazil is right to try and open this discussion and that both China and the EU should support this proposal of Brazil in order to move the issue forward. On the other side, there can be a series of bilateral approaches to that, and I will finish these two remarks in mentioning what the EU has started to do following a proposal which was put forward by the Institut Jacques Delors in Brussels, which is specialized in this relationship between trade and the environment, which is to adopt a new attitude to trade agreements in moving from trade to trade environment and development. So, instead of having one issue, you work within a triangle, which tries to better articulate in new shapes and new forms of agreement. Trade openness, environmental protection, and development, which at the end of the day remain a necessity for many developing countries. This is what we call, in our jargon, a triangle approach. And this is what these new formulas, which, as usual, in Brussels have a horrible acronym as a name: CTIP, Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships.
So we have a multilateral approach that we can adopt, and I hope it will be the case in Belém. We also have examples of new bilateral approaches, which might help articulate better these two necessary elements. So, the situation is complex, but there are a few ways I believe we can address it more openly and more efficiently. That has been the case for now. Many thanks for your attention.
Long Yongtu, Chief Negotiator for China’s WTO accession; former Vice Minister, then Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation; Chair, Strategic Advisory Board, CCG
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to join this discussion today on advancing green trade liberalisation and promoting the global green transition, organised by the Center for China and Globalization. It is a particular honour for me to share the stage with my good friend Pascal Lamy. Mr Lamy made an important contribution to China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation, and I would like to invite all of you to join me in expressing our appreciation for his efforts.
When we talk about advancing green trade liberalisation, I believe one key task is to actively participate in the global governance of green trade. Green trade governance does not stand alone. It is closely linked to global efforts to achieve sustainable development and to address climate change. As Mr Lamy just said, trade, sustainable development, and climate action now form a genuine “new triangle” – indeed, a “golden triangle.” When we discuss green trade, we cannot ignore this triangle.
As you know, in September 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in New York, setting out 17 major goals. When considering the objectives of global trade governance, we should place them within this framework of 17 goals, which outline the global action agenda from 2015 to 2030 on economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
The second corner of the triangle Mr Lamy mentioned is global climate change. Promoting green trade liberalisation must be closely linked with global climate action. In December 2015, 178 parties gathered in Paris for the UN climate conference and adopted the landmark Paris Agreement, which identified the synergies between sustainable development and climate action as one of the five pillars of global climate efforts. From the Paris Agreement onward, sustainable development and climate action have been tightly connected. Today, as we bring green trade into this picture as well, putting energy conservation, emissions reduction, and green development at the heart of our agenda, climate action is increasingly becoming a global consensus.
Many of us still remember the lively scenes at the UN climate conferences in recent years. I recall that at COP28 in Dubai, the conference ran for two full weeks, bringing together more than 40,000 participants, including heads of state and government, negotiators, civil society representatives, business leaders, and many others. It was, in fact, the largest UN conference ever held, and for a time it became a major highlight of the global multilateral system.
Today, as we talk about green trade governance, we must also firmly oppose trade protectionism and unilateralism. The current wave of trade protectionism and unilateralism is, to a large extent, holding back the liberalisation of green trade. As we all know, the goal of trade protectionists is to protect backward sectors. In the field of energy, they are protecting outdated fossil fuels and blocking the development of green energy. Many will recall that as soon as Donald Trump took office, his very first executive order was to scrap subsidies for new energy, and he repeatedly attacked wind and solar power in both rhetoric and policy. It is clear that trade protectionism does not protect the development of green energy; it protects the vested interests tied to obsolete fossil fuels.
After years of protectionist policies, and especially after the United States became one of the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels in 2015, U.S. investment in green energy declined sharply. I read one report noting that since 2018, global investment in clean energy has surpassed investment in fossil fuels. By the end of 2024, global offshore wind capacity had reached 83.2 gigawatts, in which China accounted for 50 per cent, the EU for 44 per cent, and the United States, guess how much? Just 0.2 per cent. In other words, they are hardly investing in green energy at all, and in this respect, they are even lagging behind many developing countries. In non-oil-producing countries across Latin America, Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, two-thirds already have a higher share of solar power in their electricity mix than the United States. All this shows that developing green energy is the prevailing trend.
Trade protectionism in practice is about protecting traditional fossil fuels; it obstructs the advance of green energy and the liberalisation of green trade. In operational terms, trade protectionism inevitably goes hand in hand with unilateralism, weakening and undermining the multilateral system. As we know, when Trump came to power second term, he again announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Over these years, the WTO has suffered serious marginalisation within the multilateral system, and at a time when that system has faced major difficulties, the UN Climate Change Conferences have actually achieved significant success. Under the UN climate framework, energy transition and green energy have become among the central topics, and a major driving force for global cooperation on green energy.
So, as Mr Lamy just said, when we talk about green trade, we should not confine ourselves only to the trade dimension. We need to place it in the broader context of global industrial and energy transformation. Only when industries undergo a green transformation, and only when energy systems shift toward green and low-carbon, can we truly produce green products. This is a simple point of logic and common sense. That is why, in promoting green trade, it is essential to grasp the source — green production. The more green products we are able to produce, the more vigorous the green trade will become.
Of course, the development of green trade today still faces many serious challenges. In the making of green trade policies and standards, different countries are moving in different directions, and fragmentation is a major problem. In April 2023, the EU launched its so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. After a transitional phase, it will formally enter into force in 2026, that is, next year. In practice, this mechanism amounts to a new green trade barrier for products exported to the EU, raising the threshold for market access.
In addition, many actors are now making use of concepts such as human rights, low-carbon certification, and even sustainable development to create new green trade standards and measures. France, South Korea, and other countries have introduced low-carbon certification requirements for certain products. Italy requires an environmental declaration to accompany imports. These measures cannot all be labelled green trade protectionism, but they clearly deserve to be discussed at an appropriate forum, as Mr Lamy suggested, so that the international community can judge whether or not they amount to green trade protectionism.
Beyond government policies, the growing awareness of green and low-carbon consumption among ordinary citizens is also having a major impact on markets. Some years ago, when I visited New Zealand, I went into a shop where many products, such as a cup or a pipe, were marked not only with their price, but also with the amount of CO₂ emitted in the course of their production. This gave consumers much greater freedom of choice.
Faced with this new situation, I believe we must be fully prepared. On the one hand, the new trade standards introduced by other countries should be seen as a form of pressure that can spur China to action and proactively accelerate the establishment of a green and low-carbon standards system for products, technologies, and services that is aligned with international practice. China can benchmark against advanced international standards, convert a number of appropriate international norms into domestic standards, and use this to enhance the international competitiveness of China’s green products.
At the same time, as Mr Lamy just mentioned, we need to find suitable venues to discuss these issues. China should actively use the UN framework, as well as platforms such as the G20 and BRICS, to promote discussion. China can also, as Brazil has proposed, bring the topics of green trade and climate change into the agenda of major global climate summits.
China should actively strive for a greater voice in the formulation of international economic and trade rules, put forward Chinese proposals, and communicate China’s achievements in green trade, so that it can become an active participant in and contributor to global governance of green trade.
Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, China has made significant progress in green transition and industrial transformation. This has laid a solid foundation for its active participation in the global governance of green trade and in promoting the liberalisation of green trade worldwide. Looking ahead, in order to fulfil China’s 3060 carbon commitments on the international stage and to advance the high-quality development of its green trade, China stands ready to work together with all countries to engage actively in the process of green trade liberalisation, and to make China’s contribution to that process. Thank you.
Xu Xiaofeng, President, China Meteorological Service Association; former Deputy Administrator, China Meteorological Administration
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
Ten years ago, on 25 September 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit was held at UN Headquarters in New York. At that summit, 193 member states formally adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, whose core is a set of 17 goals aimed at building a fairer, more peaceful, and more sustainable world by 2030.
In the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, released this July, Goal 13 on “Climate Action” is described as follows:
“Climate change is accelerating, with 2024 marking the hottest year on record, at approximately 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. Extreme weather is intensifying, driving the highest climate-related displacement in 16 years and worsening food insecurity, economic losses and instability.”
Exceeding 1.5°C in a single year does not, in itself, mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does sound a very serious alarm.
At present, global efforts are still far from what is needed. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that the SDGs are “alarmingly off track.” The Paris Agreement cited in this passage was also signed in 2015 by leaders from many countries. It set the goal of keeping the rise in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and of pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. It also called for achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, which is called “carbon neutrality.” Like the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement has now gone through a ten-year cycle, and the results are likewise far from encouraging.
According to data released on 16 October this year by the World Meteorological Organisation, carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere in 2024 reached a record high, with the largest annual increase since modern measurements began. It is clear that both the SDGs and the targets set by the Paris Agreement are facing extremely severe challenges and will require much more effective action and much greater effort from humanity.
On the other hand, questions that should no longer really be questions have resurfaced: has the global climate system truly undergone systemic change, and if so, what has caused it? After many years of scientific discussion, these issues that ought to be settled are once again being challenged both in words and in actions. In fact, Mr Pascal Lamy and Minister Long Yongtu have just addressed this very point.
In line with the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the answers to these questions are not in doubt: the global climate system has indeed undergone systemic change, and its causes are clear. The IPCC Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report states that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have caused global warming, and that human influence has led to widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, and biosphere. The resulting climate change is already affecting many extreme weather and climate events around the world, with broad and adverse impacts on natural and human systems and very substantial losses.
In recent years, what has actually happened with the climate has objectively confirmed this reality: the trend of frequent extreme events driven by greenhouse gas emissions and changes in the atmosphere, oceans, and cryosphere is deeply worrying. At the same time, another kind of voice has grown louder: a denial of climate change itself, claiming it is a hoax or a political tool to hold back industrial and economic growth, even proposing to reverse the designation of greenhouse gases as harmful. These are not normal scientific debates, but political pronouncements. They run counter to the mainstream international understanding and are accompanied by negative actions, obstructing global efforts by withdrawing from existing international agreements and cutting funding for climate action. The damage this causes is truly alarming. How to ensure that facts established through rigorous scientific methods are not casually denied or covered up has become a major responsibility and challenge for the scientific community.
On 13 October 2025, the Global Tipping Points Report 2025, led by the University of Exeter and co-authored by 160 scientists from around the world, was officially released. It issued a clear and sobering warning: warm-water coral reefs, one of the planet’s most valuable ecosystems, are already crossing their thermal tipping point, making them the first major Earth system to experience unprecedented dieback.
The report notes that as global warming approaches the critical 1.5°C threshold, the Earth system is moving towards multiple tipping points at an unprecedented pace. Climate change is driving more frequent episodes of extreme heat under both dry and humid conditions, as well as more persistent droughts. Vegetation is becoming more flammable, fire seasons are lengthening, and the number of days with dangerous fire weather is increasing. As a result, wildfires are growing in frequency and intensity, and associated CO₂ emissions are rising. Some studies suggest that global wildfire-related CO₂ emissions have increased by around 60 per cent since 2001, and in some high-latitude regions they have tripled.
Another serious consequence of prolonged high temperatures is their impact on human health. On 25 July 2024, after the global daily temperature record had been broken for three consecutive days, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated at a press conference that, according to the latest UN reports, around 500,000 deaths every year are linked to heat, far more than those caused by hurricanes and other extreme weather events—and even that figure may be an underestimate. If the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement are to be achieved, then helping all countries pursue a green development path, through multiple channels, is the only choice.
China is a large developing country still in rapid growth. Meeting its pledged emission reduction targets on schedule does indeed entail considerable pressure, but this has not shaken China’s commitment to sustainable development. China has continued to increase investment in science and technology, advance high-quality development, and rapidly expand the scale of green and clean energy. Costs have fallen markedly, accelerating the transition of the energy mix. Installed capacity for wind and solar power is now among the largest in the world. In 2024, China’s renewable power generation reached 3.46 trillion kilowatt-hours, a year-on-year increase of 19 per cent, accounting for about 35 per cent of total electricity generation. Through international cooperation and exchange, China has also helped other countries with their energy transitions, contributing to global efforts to reduce emissions.
In the recently released Recommendations of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for Formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, the development goals clearly state that major new strides should be made in building a “Beautiful China,” “Eco-friendly ways of work and life should become the norm in society, the goal of peaking carbon emissions before 2030 should be achieved as scheduled, and a new clean, low-carbon, safe, and efficient energy system should take shape. There should be a continued drop in the total discharge of major pollutants, and the diversity, stability, and sustainability of our ecosystems should be steadily enhanced.” This reflects China’s determination to follow a low-carbon, green development path and the concrete measures being put in place to that end.
Of course, many problems and difficulties remain along the road to green development. The key lies in turning the various international agreements into concrete progress, including the very practical suggestions put forward just now by Mr Lamy and Minister Long. These efforts cannot remain at the level of shared concepts, conference declarations, rhetorical appeals, show-of-hands votes or the signing of documents. What is needed is to align policies, mechanisms, finance, technology, and concrete actions on the ground, so that outcomes ultimately match the goals we have set. This will require the joint efforts of all countries and all sectors of society.
Thank you.
Note: The above text is the output of transcribing from an audio recording. It is posted as a reference for the discussion.
